This should go in some kind of "Loud Passerby's Guide to Less Wrong" wiki page so that we would be able to post a link next time... The only way to stop repetition is to distill the argument in a reusable form.

If you're being a troll: save yourself some trouble and go away. Eliezer's been irritable lately and is apt to boot you.

If I were a troll, would going away somehow be more beneficial to me than being booted? I mean, does this Eliezer actually physically kick suspected trolls? Or would the end result be the exact same? And if I were a troll, do you suppose saving myself some trouble would be my overriding concern?

If you're actually, sincerely trying to have a fun exchange about whether you might be immortal (quantum or otherwise):

1) The little numbers on your comments are, in fact, important and should interest you. They indicate how you're being received, on average.

Why should I care how I'm being received by anonymous faceless strangers, whose posts I may never even have read, and who may not even be taking part in the discussion? Are there Wrongie awards up for grabs? I believe the girl mentioned something about a... check? Please don't tell me that I should alter my thinking and the expression of my ideas to suit popular opinion! Is that what you do?

You may have corrupted public opinion of this account to the point where you can't salvage it...

So, public opinion is going to hold something I wrote on this thread against me forever, and use it against me on other threads, whether it agrees with me on those other threads or not? Have I stumbled into the Old Fishwives' forum by mistake?

If this is the venue you've chosen to have your discussion on, surely you think we make suitable interlocutors - and hopefully, that will let you find informational value in numeric disapproval too.

I began posting here about a minute after I arrived for the first time. I'm just beginning to learn about the mindsets of some of the participants here. I'm not overly impressed so far. I'm prepared though, to give it a chance. No point in going by first impressions. I'll need a few more listenings before I decide if I like it or not.

When people quibble with you over what words mean, that requires your attention too! They're trying to find a way to communicate with you.

I received a response that said (in its entirety) "Taboo legitimate". The word 'Taboo' was a link to an article about something or other that appeared irrelevant. Do you suppose that poster was trying to find a way to communicate? When I questioned him, he apologized for his brevity and expanded on his post, and I withdrew the word 'legitimate", as it was redundant anyway. Others chimed in (as you do here) telling me how I was the one at fault.

Pretty much nobody here will find themselves strangely compelled by protestations that a) your opponents have poor reading comprehension

Yet, Jack, for one, appears to have poor reading comprehension.

b) it is unfair to expect you to do any background reading even when links are supplied

I don't protest that it's unfair. I state that I'm not prepared to do it. If you don't like it, either stop providing such reading material in lieu of originally-phrased arguments, or don't engage me. Nobody is forcing you to respond to me.

c) you are winning

I didn't make this a competition, however, I am winning the debate. It's immaterial that people don't find themselves compelled by my stating such (in face of the many votes that state otherwise, and yet fly in the face of the rather obvious missing evidence of my mortality). Is humility big here?

d) we are engaged in groupthink

So, you're saying that the group, as a body, denies it is engaged in Groupthink? Is there any room for discussion on that?

e) you are an unheard-of non-quantumly immortal creature (although I'd be pretty impressed by certain sorts of video evidence!).

I didn't say that. I said I could be that. Part of your job is to present me with evidence that I'm not. America was unheard-of... until it was heard-of. And it was right there. The people just couldn't hear of it, at the beginning.

Right, enough fun. Let's stick to the topic at hand from now on.

Oh no. I've been quite convinced by this thread. It is clearly impossible to present you with anything you'll recognize as evidence of your mortality.

Yes, it is clearly impossible. As I predicted. Although you could have at least tried. Does this mean I DO win? Or is this some bizarro debateland, where you still win?

I'm serious about the bet though. Or does your belief that there is no evidence that you are mortal not change the your belief that you are indeed mortal?

I'm not interested in your bet. I might die. There is an equal weight of evidence (i.e., zero) for my immortality. You want to bet $5 against my entire estate on a coin toss. No thanks. Perhaps that why I didn't predict that's I wouldn't die in 2010.... or ever.