Come on, what? Look, I like your posts, and found them helpful for thinking about this stuff, but I do not consider them anywhere close to the level where they “resolved” the relevant question, and where any new post I write would need to explicitly address them.
Like, if my thinking here was highly derivative of yours, sure, but it is not!
Look, you can have your own takes on whether I am contributing to the conversation, but what on earth is “dishonest” about me trying my best to write up my models here? I certainly do not owe you engagement with your models in order to think about this, and if doing so results in you trying to somehow prosecute me for dishonesty, then I would rather not read them! I like them, I respect you as a thinker, but they are not like foundational or crucial to my understanding of this space, and I do not consider them common-knowledge among the audience I talk to.
Rehearsing the basic observation that there’s adversariality
None of my posts are about this. Failing to actually read my posts and claiming that you are contributing to the conversation is not actually the same as being informed by them and revealing that information, or actually contributing to the conversation, as you would say.
Which to be clear, is totally fine. You don’t owe me reading my posts. I don’t think it’s particularly lame, boring, or dishonest.
I do wish you engaged in a way where we had a chance of having an actual real conversation, because I again do like your writing on this, but it’s fine by my lights if we can’t. Just let me know if for some reason me reading your posts and finding them valuable must apparently produce dishonesty in my writing by your lights if they don’t influence my writing in just the right way, and I can stop.
Sure, we don’t need to engage further here. I could restate or try to clarify, but my sense is you are not very hopeful or excited about investing effort to understand (which IDK, is fine though feels a bit lame from my perspective, but not majorly so).
Come on, what? Look, I like your posts, and found them helpful for thinking about this stuff, but I do not consider them anywhere close to the level where they “resolved” the relevant question, and where any new post I write would need to explicitly address them.
Like, if my thinking here was highly derivative of yours, sure, but it is not!
Look, you can have your own takes on whether I am contributing to the conversation, but what on earth is “dishonest” about me trying my best to write up my models here? I certainly do not owe you engagement with your models in order to think about this, and if doing so results in you trying to somehow prosecute me for dishonesty, then I would rather not read them! I like them, I respect you as a thinker, but they are not like foundational or crucial to my understanding of this space, and I do not consider them common-knowledge among the audience I talk to.
None of my posts are about this. Failing to actually read my posts and claiming that you are contributing to the conversation is not actually the same as being informed by them and revealing that information, or actually contributing to the conversation, as you would say.
Which to be clear, is totally fine. You don’t owe me reading my posts. I don’t think it’s particularly lame, boring, or dishonest.
I do wish you engaged in a way where we had a chance of having an actual real conversation, because I again do like your writing on this, but it’s fine by my lights if we can’t. Just let me know if for some reason me reading your posts and finding them valuable must apparently produce dishonesty in my writing by your lights if they don’t influence my writing in just the right way, and I can stop.
Too many nonsequiturs here for me to have any idea what an earnest object level response would even be.
Sure, we don’t need to engage further here. I could restate or try to clarify, but my sense is you are not very hopeful or excited about investing effort to understand (which IDK, is fine though feels a bit lame from my perspective, but not majorly so).