Eliezer, why is one of your most common responses to someone disagreeing with you saying that they obviously haven’t read a previous post?
People have been disagreeing with every post you’ve put up. More specifically, people have disagreed with your assertions about what follows logically from previous assertions you’ve made. It’s not just your points that they reject, it’s the structure and validity of your arguments that they have problems with.
Richard Hollerith is a regular commentor who can be reasonably presumed to have read your previous posts—in fact, we not only can presume that but should. If he makes an argument that you feel is ruled out by your previous posts, the reasonable conclusion is that he disagrees with your arguments, not that he is ignorant of them—especially when the arguments in question were posted recently.
Eliezer, why is one of your most common responses to someone disagreeing with you saying that they obviously haven’t read a previous post?
People have been disagreeing with every post you’ve put up. More specifically, people have disagreed with your assertions about what follows logically from previous assertions you’ve made. It’s not just your points that they reject, it’s the structure and validity of your arguments that they have problems with.
Richard Hollerith is a regular commentor who can be reasonably presumed to have read your previous posts—in fact, we not only can presume that but should. If he makes an argument that you feel is ruled out by your previous posts, the reasonable conclusion is that he disagrees with your arguments, not that he is ignorant of them—especially when the arguments in question were posted recently.