This message is by Jonathan Vos Post, who three years ago - before LW split from OB - had some comments deleted on an OB thread, and when his pals (Fellman and Sokol) showed up to confirm his existence, they were interpreted as sockpuppets and also deleted.
Evidently, he will not rest until this wrong is righted, as he has mentioned it on various blogs, in August 2007 IIIIII, May 2008, and February 2010, and now here in October 2010. His compadre Dr Fellman also got into the act at one time.
(I didn't know any of this fifteen m... (read more)
Eliezer Yudkowsky...screamed at my former business partner... and then wept "like a little girl"... I thus cannot accept that someone is "rational" because he self-publishes that he is, and worships Bayes' Theorem.
The test of whether one is rational is in fact whether one obeys Bayes' Theorem, not whether one avoids screaming or weeping.
The people I know in person […] who insist that they are entirely rational, all of the time, have at times annoyed me[.]
Yeah, such people annoy me too.
That's why I particularly like the title of this blog. One can never be perfect, but one can strive for perfection. One can never be 100% correct, but one can be Less Wrong.
PS to all: Yeah, I know that I've made my comment in a poor context, but ‘Less Wrong’ really is an excellent title for a blog, isn't it? I just want to sing its praises.
Reposted, will some spelling errors corrected. I am a professionally published award-winning Science Fiction and Fantasy author, who is amused by the fan fiction in question, but wonders why the author does not attempt to have paid, edited, Fantasy or Science Fiction published in a SFWA-endorsed Major Market.
"Will" should be "with". "Science fiction" and "fantasy" shouldn't be capitalised, nor should "major market". The last sentence is very awkward, with three past participles stepping on each other's r... (read more)
Protip: if you're going to make claims like that, and then spend several paragraphs bashing another author -- don't be a coward. Post proof of your identity. In fact, post proof of every claim you make. You can't* declare people 'academically suspect' without providing a citation. You can't declare people irrational without providing at least a quotation of irrational thought.
An example of irrational thought: "The people I know in person (especially professional Physicists and Mathematicians and computer programmers in areas such as A.I.) who insist that they are entirely rational, all of the time, have at times annoyed me, especially when, for example, their pose breaks down and they leap and yell for joy while clapping their hands at Sarah Palin speeches (as one ex-FermiLab JPL neighbor of mine does), or turn red-faced and yell at me."
First, you draw conclusions about all from a very small survey. Next, you dismiss all the pursuit of rationality because it is inherently unreachable. There is a difference between 5% and 95%, and while neither is 100% one is much more than the other.
P.S. The audacity of posting on a website run by Eliezer and declaring yourself to be 'censored.' Well, it speaks volumed.
P.P.S. "Edit" button exists for a reason. See this post as an example of how to use it. I reported your duplicate post, I suggest you delete it.
*You can, be be prepared to be laughed at and ignored.
0[anonymous]
Would you like someone to talk to about this ProfessorPost? You seem quite distressed that your existence has not been acknowledged.
A guide for the perplexed:
This message is by Jonathan Vos Post, who three years ago - before LW split from OB - had some comments deleted on an OB thread, and when his pals (Fellman and Sokol) showed up to confirm his existence, they were interpreted as sockpuppets and also deleted.
Evidently, he will not rest until this wrong is righted, as he has mentioned it on various blogs, in August 2007 I II III, May 2008, and February 2010, and now here in October 2010. His compadre Dr Fellman also got into the act at one time.
(I didn't know any of this fifteen m... (read more)
The test of whether one is rational is in fact whether one obeys Bayes' Theorem, not whether one avoids screaming or weeping.
Yeah, such people annoy me too.
That's why I particularly like the title of this blog. One can never be perfect, but one can strive for perfection. One can never be 100% correct, but one can be Less Wrong.
PS to all: Yeah, I know that I've made my comment in a poor context, but ‘Less Wrong’ really is an excellent title for a blog, isn't it? I just want to sing its praises.
"Will" should be "with". "Science fiction" and "fantasy" shouldn't be capitalised, nor should "major market". The last sentence is very awkward, with three past participles stepping on each other's r... (read more)
Please go away.