= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JGWeissman comments on The Frontal Syndrome - 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 (39)
I find it interesting that you consider it trivial for others to verify the information with a web search, but, for you, it is a matter of "hunting down citations". It should be easier for the expert to find the sources.
I, for one, am not interested in driving you from this site. I would rather see you become a better contributor, more capable of explaining your ideas without gratuitously offending everyone, without calling people morons for asking questions when it should be easy for you to just answer the question. This is why I said earlier that it is unfortunate that you chose not to support a well written article with citations.
Seconded. Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence that this is likely to happen before we all get turned into tiny molecular smiley faces by a rogue AI, I would settle for a "Don't show me comments by [Annoyance]" option in my preferences. The signal-to-noise ratio is generally just too low to be worth it, yet I find the noise sucking me in anyway.</mixed metaphor>
The sources from which I learned the information would be difficult for me to locate, even if I remembered all of them.
It's trivially easy for you to find sources that confirm my claim, though. It's the difference between sources and the sources.
Given the choice between accurately relaying the truth, and refraining from offending, I prefer to accurately relay the truth. Sometimes offending is required.
Giving citations would have relayed truth and avoided offending. It follows that offending, in this case, was not "required".