I suppose my reply might have been better directed at the post you were in turn replying to, but your post added to what that person said.
You at least had other things to say about the author’s argument elsewhere, but wedrifid commented on nothing but the fonts, thus implying that the formatting invalidated everything else the author said.
wedrifid can of course speak for himself, but I have to say I inferred no such implication. It seems rather more likely that he just had better things to do than address everything else the author said.
Well, I can’t swear to unconscious motives, but for me the problem was that every time I scrolled through the latest comments page and saw “in response to Ontologial Reductionism” I felt a dust speck fly into my eyeball. Even so, I wouldn’t have said anything if there hadn’t already been a comment on the formatting.
But thank you for informing me, I’ll try to bear that in mind for the future.
I don’t think I’d have seen your comment as hostile if it had been a direct reply to the post. In that case, it would have looked like helpful proof-reading.
Huh. Thinking about it, I can see your point of view, but when I made the decision I had a strong emotional reaction in the other direction- that a top level comment about nothing but nitpicks would be perceived as an attack (which I wanted to avoid). Considering my track record, it would probably be best if I weighted your opinion higher than mine.
Yes, because a single typo and some formatting errors completely invalidate any argument.
Yes, because that’s what I said or implied.
ETA: This is your first post? I guess I’m flattered.
I suppose my reply might have been better directed at the post you were in turn replying to, but your post added to what that person said.
You at least had other things to say about the author’s argument elsewhere, but wedrifid commented on nothing but the fonts, thus implying that the formatting invalidated everything else the author said.
wedrifid can of course speak for himself, but I have to say I inferred no such implication. It seems rather more likely that he just had better things to do than address everything else the author said.
That’s almost how I read his and your comments—not just better things to do, but a desire to snipe, or in LessWrongian language, to lower status.
Well, I can’t swear to unconscious motives, but for me the problem was that every time I scrolled through the latest comments page and saw “in response to Ontologial Reductionism” I felt a dust speck fly into my eyeball. Even so, I wouldn’t have said anything if there hadn’t already been a comment on the formatting.
But thank you for informing me, I’ll try to bear that in mind for the future.
I don’t think I’d have seen your comment as hostile if it had been a direct reply to the post. In that case, it would have looked like helpful proof-reading.
Huh. Thinking about it, I can see your point of view, but when I made the decision I had a strong emotional reaction in the other direction- that a top level comment about nothing but nitpicks would be perceived as an attack (which I wanted to avoid). Considering my track record, it would probably be best if I weighted your opinion higher than mine.