= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on Open thread, February 15-28, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (345)
Yes, RW was just the forum that willingly opened their doors to various anti-LW malcontents, who are themselves pushing this for all it's worth.
That's overly specific. Mostly they're folks who like to snicker at weird ideas — most of which I snicker at, too.
I didn't claim my list was exhaustive. In particular, I was thinking of Dmytry and XiXiDu, both of whom are never far away from any discussion of LW and EY that takes place off-site. The better part of comments on the RW talk pages and Charles Stross' blog concerning the basilisk are mostly copied and pasted from all their old remarks about the subject.
OK. What I heard in your earlier comment was that a wiki community was being held at fault for "opening their doors" to someone who criticized LW. Wikis are kind of known for opening their doors, and the skeptic community for being receptive to the literary genre of debunking.
That was a rather mind-killed comment.Wikis are suppoed to have open doors. RW is supposed to deal with pseudoscience, craziness and the pitfalls of religions. The Bsl*sk is easily all three.
In what way? How is merely stating it to be "mind-killed" supposed to change my mind?
You're misinformed.
My comment wasn't about whether or not RW should cover the Basilisk.
You might care about that sort of thing, you might not. I don' exactly have a complete knowledge of your psychology.
That's irrelevant. Wikis open thei doors to all contributors, and then eject those that don't behave. That's still an open door policy as opposed to invitation-only.
If it should cover the basilisk, why shouldn't it have contributions from the "malcontents".
I didn't make any such statement. Recall, DG was wondering where all this drama about the basilisk came from -- I advised him that it came from two particular users, who are well-known for bringing up this drama in many other forums and have more-or-less dominated the RW talk pages on the subject.
I didn't even say anything remotely close to that, and you know it.
Look, if this gets into metafictional causality violation, there's gonna be hell to pay.