swestrup comments on "Stuck In The Middle With Bruce" - Less Wrong

54 Post author: CronoDAS 09 April 2009 12:24AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (93)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: swestrup 09 April 2009 07:35:51PM 0 points [-]

I find it 'interesting' that we've both had our posts voted down to zero. Could it be that someone objects to pointing out that the game is a money sink and therefore one might have perfectly rational reasons to avoid it?

Comment author: MrHen 10 April 2009 01:24:27AM 0 points [-]

In addition to what Z M Davis said, I voted both of your posts down because I felt they added nothing useful to the discussion. Thomblake's was just information responding to yours, so I left it alone.

This comment isn't meant as arrogant or aggressive, just an explanation since it seems you've asked for one.

To directly answer your question:

Could it be that someone objects to pointing out that the game is a money sink and therefore one might have perfectly rational reasons to avoid it?

I do not object to the comment, but I think it is less valuable than other comments. Hope that helps.

Comment author: swestrup 10 April 2009 02:31:45AM 4 points [-]

That, of course, is your opinion and you're welcome to it. But I thought that I was (perhaps too verbosely to be clear) pointing out that this the original article was yet-another post on Less Wrong that seemed to be saying.

"Do X. Its the rational thing to do. If you don't do X, you aren't rational."

I was trying to point out that there may be many rational reasons for not doing X.