You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

paper-machine comments on Open thread, February 15-28, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: David_Gerard 15 February 2013 11:17PM

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

Comments (345)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 03 March 2013 04:58:39PM *  0 points [-]

That was a rather mind-killed comment.

In what way? How is merely stating it to be "mind-killed" supposed to change my mind?

Wikis are suppoed to have open doors.

You're misinformed.

RW is supposed to deal with pseudoscience, craziness and the pitfalls of religions. The Bsl*sk is easily all three.

My comment wasn't about whether or not RW should cover the Basilisk.

Comment author: Peterdjones 03 March 2013 06:22:23PM -1 points [-]

How is merely stating it to be "mind-killed" supposed to change my mind?

You might care about that sort of thing, you might not. I don' exactly have a complete knowledge of your psychology.

You're misinformed.

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.

My comment wasn't about whether or not RW should cover the Basilisk.

If it should cover the basilisk, why shouldn't it have contributions from the "malcontents".

Comment author: [deleted] 03 March 2013 11:15:23PM *  -1 points [-]

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.

Comment deleted 05 March 2013 07:01:12AM *  [-]
Comment author: [deleted] 05 March 2013 12:36:14PM 0 points [-]

I didn't even say anything remotely close to that, and you know it.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 05 March 2013 07:06:11AM 0 points [-]

Look, if this gets into metafictional causality violation, there's gonna be hell to pay.