For the record, Silas is a donor -- listed on our donor list as having donated $2,000.

Would I be unreasonable or unrealistic if I expressed a desire to not see this any of this SIAI inside baseball on Less Wrong... ever?

I don't care for flame wars either. But what I do care about is that if it is permitted to make a declaration of fact on lesswrong it is permitted to to refute it. The details of what you suggest in the parent violate this. You advocating the lesswrong equivalent of true evil!

(And if Silas isn't a donor... Thomas %&$@! Bayes why does anyone care?!)

I don't, but if I don't say that out loud, other people go on loudly caring, and if I do say it out loud, I get downvoted. (Shrug.)

(I hope you'll pardon the digression into crude discussion of rational strategies for influence. This is a far more interesting topic than what serves for the object level at this point!)

This is a pretty sad day for LW, to learn that you can just lie and strawman your way out of criticism, because whoever calls you on it is just "staying on the same topic for too long" :-/

Speak more strategically. Don't let the verbal signals you utter be tools you use to salve and release your own feelings. Not because it is virtuous, purely because that doesn't get you what you want. Also note that not only am I someone who consistently voted you up and those insulting you down, my comment provided stronger support for your position than your most recent comments managed. Allow me to translate what I said into 'fun' rather than vaguely polite:

"You're so right man. They're full of shit. I mean WTF is with this claiming stuff with no evidence then ragging on you instead of answering you. That's fucking pathetic. Ape Status Bullshit 101 - If someone asks critical questions don't answer them, beat them with a fucking stick so nobody else thinks it's ok to dissent. That's what people with status and power do and people always let them get away with it. But here's the thing: You're making it easy for them by being a whiny little bitch. How's that working out for you? Not working, huh? Yeah, no shit. What did you expect? Now stop crying 'cos the world isn't fair to you and start saying shit that works. Also, accept that you cannot change other people and instead work out what influence you can have and make it. In this case it would be 'make all unjustified claims a net PR loss for Luke/SIAI by calling them on it effectively and moderately.' And I'd have called that a real success. Heck, it even worked. Look at Anna's replies from a few days ago. Now man the fuck up and stop being a pussy. Because I often agree with the complaints that you have about stuff but don't want to look bad by association."

Now, consider the difference between the above wording and what I actually said. Notice that it positions me as somewhat of an ally, assumes the criticisms you make of Luke are valid but at the same time doesn't try to alienate me from the tribe. See why I chose to use the wording I did and, more importantly, which conceptual territory I chose to stake out and claim. A good rule of thumb is that if you are acting less savvy, constrained and strategic than the wedrifid persona then you are doing something wrong. Because I'm rather flippant and cavalier myself.

I really don't think that's the problem here.

You had a good point, you made it, and you pointed out the problems with the responses to it. All of these comments were upvoted, many to double digits. But then your comments turned into personal attacks on Luke (suggesting he doesn't understand the material he posts, suggesting he is lying about not seeing an earlier comment of yours). At that point, I felt (as, I'm guessing, did others), that your comments were actively counterproductive in trying to learn more about the minicamp, as well as promoting a community norm of insulting each other and assuming bad faith.

I also tend to get annoyed by, and downvote, comments to the effect of "The fact that I was downvoted reflects badly on all of you, who obviously downvoted me for [reason]" since I usually didn't downvote for the reason mentioned and I don't see them as a sincere attempt to understand the source of disagreement.

For what it's worth, I agree that you're doing the right thing.