The first three posts where written by curi, a Popperian critical of Bayesianism, who has also contributed a large number of quality comments, and probably many more comments than anyone else on LW during the same time period. So you've got this high quality commenter who has the skills to write a lot of good stuff very quickly and who is generating interest but who has fairly dismal kharma. Explain.

Upvotes signal "I would like to see more like this," and downvotes signal "I would like to see less like this." Curi was upvoted to start with for raising some ideas not in common circulation here, and for making some claims of poor scholarship on Eliezer's part (absent extenuating factors, we tend to upvotes comments which promote improved scholarship.) He began to be downvoted as other posters began to become frustrated with his double standards of scholarly expectations, poorly founded arguments, and failure to follow through on requests for information that would convince us to take further interest in Popper. The downvotes indicate that other posters no longer feel that he is participating according to standards we consider appropriate.

Criticism of the ideas that are mainstream here always generates activity, and the reception is positive when the conduct is positive, and negative when the conduct is negative.