A guide for the perplexed:

This message is by Jonathan Vos Post, who three years ago - before LW split from OB - had some comments deleted on an OB thread, and when his pals (Fellman and Sokol) showed up to confirm his existence, they were interpreted as sockpuppets and also deleted.

Evidently, he will not rest until this wrong is righted, as he has mentioned it on various blogs, in August 2007 I II III, May 2008, and February 2010, and now here in October 2010. His compadre Dr Fellman also got into the act at one time.

(I didn't know any of this fifteen minutes ago, btw. It all came from google.)

Professor Post, I doubt you will ever get an apology for having been called a fictitious entity on a blog three years ago, but be sure that we all now know that you exist.

The people I know in person […] who insist that they are entirely rational, all of the time, have at times annoyed me[.]

Yeah, such people annoy me too.

That's why I particularly like the title of this blog. One can never be perfect, but one can strive for perfection. One can never be 100% correct, but one can be Less Wrong.

PS to all: Yeah, I know that I've made my comment in a poor context, but ‘Less Wrong’ really is an excellent title for a blog, isn't it? I just want to sing its praises.

Reposted, will some spelling errors corrected. I am a professionally published award-winning Science Fiction and Fantasy author, who is amused by the fan fiction in question, but wonders why the author does not attempt to have paid, edited, Fantasy or Science Fiction published in a SFWA-endorsed Major Market.

"Will" should be "with". "Science fiction" and "fantasy" shouldn't be capitalised, nor should "major market". The last sentence is very awkward, with three past participles stepping on each other's role, and should be rewritten.

Harry Potter is a brilliant series of novels about Evil, in politics, in pedagogy, and in attacking people with whom one disagrees. That it is set in a world where Magic works (though more on a cook-book basis than an axiomatic or empirical science basis).

It is debatable whether "Evil" should be capitalised. The third comma should be deleted. The second sentence is completely broken.

Irrational people who pretend that they are Rational, and devote blogs to boasting about their purported rationality. Is it rational for me to be driven crazy by them?

"Rational" should not be capitalised. The paragraph has no logical connection to the one that precedes it.

I think that I'm mostly rational, most of the time. The people I know in person (especially professional Physicists and Mathematicians and computer programmers in areas such as A.I.) who insist that they are entirely rational, all of the time, have at times annoyed me, especially when, for example, their pose breaks down and they leap and yell for joy while clapping their hands at Sarah Palin speeches (as one ex-FermiLab JPL neighbor of mine does), or turn red-faced and yell at me. We are imperfect beings, and I consider it a flaw to pretend that we are perfectly rational.

"Physicists" and "mathematicians" should not be capitalised, especially if "computer programmers" isn't. "All of the time" clashes with "at times". "For example" should be placed five words later. "Yell" is repeated. Your shorter example should precede the longer one.

In the monograph that I've been working on for a couple of years about lying and deception, axiomatized, using bisimulation, there is a deep epistemic question about to what extent you can know something, but not know that you know it. In vernacular, this is about "the unconscious" mind, which Freud and others have explained at length is dedicated to "primary" mental processes (affective) rather than "secondary" mental processes" such as rational cognition.

Do not cite a work that is not available to your audience, unless you can expect them to trust you. "Axiomatized, using bisimulation" is extremely awkward, and if the words are used correctly is not relevant to the point you're making. "In vernacular" should follow a technical explanation. You missed an "as" before "Freud". You added an extra quote. There should be symmetry between the explanations of what primary and secondary mental processes are.

Not to single out the academically suspect Eliezer Yudkowsky merely because he declines to rationally admit that I exist, but he screamed at my former business partner and still friend John Sokol (an internet pioneer, first to send video through the net) and then wept "like a little girl" (said Sokol). I thus cannot accept that someone is "rational" because he self-publishes that he is, and worships Bayes' Theorem.

Proslepsis is a vulgar trick. "Still" is unnecessary. "Internet" clashes with "net". There should be a "the" before "first". "Said" should be "according to". That final conjunction is a crime against humanity and should be replaced by "or because he".

In my informed opinion, Eliezer Yudkowsky is an irrational blow-hard cult-leader who denies my very existence. Last time I checked, I am still banned for posting comments on the only-self-published Eliezer Yudkowsky's blog, where he refused ever to retract the public claims that I am a hoax perpetuated by Professor Philip V. Fellman (then a full-professor at Southern New Hampshire University) and internet pioneer, inventor John Sokol. Feel, free, facebook friends, to post anytime on Yudkowsky's blog that copious evidence confirms my existence. And asking why he persists in pretending to be rational. Call me irrational, but I take it personally when I am defamed online.

There is a qualitative difference between 'being an irrational blow-hard cult-leader' and 'denying your very existence'; do not mix both in the same statement. "Only-self-published" is not a legitimate compound adjective. "Ever" is not used like that. It is a single "claim", not multiple ones. "Full professor" is not hyphenated. The comma before "inventor" should be an "and". There shouldn't be a comma after "feel". "Facebook", for once, should be capitalised. "Anytime" shoud be "at any time". "Asking" should be "to ask", connecting with the previous "to post". That sentence should also be merged with the preceding one.

I stand by to see if I am censored, or if I receive a years-late apology.

The comma is unnecessary.

The text as a whole is severely lacking in coherence, jumping from one argument to the next with only the thinnest of connections, and is peppered throughout with unjustified assertions. The tone is also wildly inconsistent, mixing solemn proclamations with personal vendettas. The persuasive power of this essay, as a result, is irredeemably compromised, to the point that any writing you may produce in the future will suffer from violent prejudice.

Conclusion: Whatever "professional publisher" might have "professionally published" your writing deserves to be neither.

-- Summer Glau

Eliezer Yudkowsky...screamed at my former business partner... and then wept "like a little girl"... I thus cannot accept that someone is "rational" because he self-publishes that he is, and worships Bayes' Theorem.

The test of whether one is rational is in fact whether one obeys Bayes' Theorem, not whether one avoids screaming or weeping.

Please go away.

Reposted, will some spelling errors corrected. I am a professionally published award-winning Science Fiction and Fantasy author...

Protip: if you're going to make claims like that, and then spend several paragraphs bashing another author -- don't be a coward. Post proof of your identity. In fact, post proof of every claim you make. You can't* declare people 'academically suspect' without providing a citation. You can't declare people irrational without providing at least a quotation of irrational thought.

An example of irrational thought: "The people I know in person (especially professional Physicists and Mathematicians and computer programmers in areas such as A.I.) who insist that they are entirely rational, all of the time, have at times annoyed me, especially when, for example, their pose breaks down and they leap and yell for joy while clapping their hands at Sarah Palin speeches (as one ex-FermiLab JPL neighbor of mine does), or turn red-faced and yell at me."

First, you draw conclusions about all from a very small survey. Next, you dismiss all the pursuit of rationality because it is inherently unreachable. There is a difference between 5% and 95%, and while neither is 100% one is much more than the other.

P.S. The audacity of posting on a website run by Eliezer and declaring yourself to be 'censored.' Well, it speaks volumed.

P.P.S. "Edit" button exists for a reason. See this post as an example of how to use it. I reported your duplicate post, I suggest you delete it.

*You can, be be prepared to be laughed at and ignored.