(EDIT: apparently it's no longer possible to link to subsections of Wikipedia articles using #. Above link is meant to point to the section of the article entitled "Rightmost decimal digits...")

URL encode the apostrophe, and it works.

3^odd = 3 mod 4

so it ends in 7.

(but I repeat myself)

no, 7

(see other comment)

4 doesn't match the data, because no one who has disagreed with the above listed points has given a reason that they disagree with them. There have been no arguments made against my posts, just (1, 2, and 3) statements about aesthetic preferences. IMHO all y'all have really bad aesthetic preferences.

Just because I don't speak in a pretentious tone doesn't mean that I can't make valid points. I get kind of sick of all of the LessWrong commenters sounding alike in tone so I intentionally try to diversify things. Diverse forms of discussion seem more likely to produce diverse forms of thought [insert generic Orwell reference here]. Informal tones are also more conducive to casual communication which takes less time to articulate. Formalism in everyday life is stupid.

Judge the accuracy of the information I provide, please, not the tone which I choose to provide it in. Arguing shouldn't have to be so formal and should never preclude major lulz whenever major lulz can be achieved. Anyone who acts as though something else is true should provide warranted reasons for doing so or else should be considered a major n00b.

Doesn't it intuitively make sense that feedback about feedback is good for the same reasons that feedback is good? If my intuitions are bad, the least someone could do is offer an argument to prove the flaws of my intuition. I could have clarified this, I guess, but I felt no real reason to do so given the stunning absence of actual substantive criticisms of what I was doing.

People weren't responding rationally to my comments, so I pointed out that those people were being dumb. That seems like something that is okay, and like something that might improve feedback mechanisms and which should thus be praised rather than downvoted. ArisKatsaris' one sentence statement about her karma habits didn't have any justifications behind it, so it didn't deserve a detailed and warranted response. I did describe in general terms the substance of my objection, that's enough in the absence of warranted counterarguments

All of the above listed reasons seem like valid arguments to me, if they're flawed I would like to know. But I would like actual reasons, not just vague statements that appeal to unjustified personal preferences.

You aren't saying anything new: you think your words useful (of positive utility), but the people who downvote them obviously don't so think them -- they consider them of zero or negative utility; and they vote accordingly.

In that case - I upvoted your initial comment. I did not downvote the "complaint list" comment until it had grown quite large.

I think your characterization of your "complaint" comment is inaccurate, and I was trying to induce you to revisit it, because otherwise you're arguing from false premises. I don't think the initial comment should have been downvoted! However, your response was not useful to you for your expressed purpose of eliciting clarification on feedback, or to me or (apparently) the LW-emergent-consciousness for contributing to valuable discussion. It was downvoted for these reasons - and they're good ones!

Of particular note is your unwarranted confidence that people who disagree with you are "irrational" and "dumb". You did not have access to sufficient information to conclude this! In fact, if they were downvoting you because they expected your comment to lead to unproductive discussion, they were right.

More to the point, have you considered that you may have erred in this thread?