= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FAWS comments on New Year's Prediction Thread (2012) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (339)
Incorrect, since nyan_sandwich's post lacks the asterix after the posting time marking an edited post.
Solvent didn't edit ver comment, either. Solvent's point was that, a year from now, Costanza can just say that nyan_sandwich made up a fake quote.
irrelevant, presence or absence of the asterix for the quoted post is what matters.
Not at anywhere near the same level of plausibility. Lack of asterix means definite proof that the quote is fake.
I could find a comment of yours that you edited after publishing, and comment a fake "quote of the original" on it.
See, I agree that having an unedited comment is very important for verifying predictions later- but nyansandwich's comment won't count to a future reader as infallible evidence of what Costanza once said. The future reader must consider the possibility that nyansandwich was lying.
(Of course, ve wasn't. But we're all being pedantic here.)
Dammit, I forgot that the underscore in nyan sandwich's name would translate into italics. And for obvious reasons, I ain't editing that comment.
So what? None of that impacts my point that the relation between the two comment pairs in question is not symmetric in the way originally implied.