6 ms·

Not only does the article make the same point you are making but with more nuance, it also discusses arguments from the other side that I think are interesting

Not only does the article make the same point you are making but with more nuance, it also discusses arguments from the other side that I think are interesting and important as well. Not sure why you made this comment.

gnarbarian 9y ago
A succinct summary of a 3,000 word article is often valuable.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  Sure, if it were a summary. You conveniently left out everything but the title, and ignored entirely the points of the anthroplogists/archaeologists, instead caricaturizing them as “afraid of the results.” As an engineer, this is disappointing.
ggm 9y ago
Since any competent reader could make the same inferential judgement you did by reading both the original article and the comment, I'm not sure why you made this comment.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  Suppose an article is about some group claiming X and some group responding with Y; the conclusion of the article is that X is mostly true, but Y has some good points. If someone comments “I think X! People who think Y are wrong,” i.e. with a comment that contains not only a strict subset of the content of the article, but one that fails to summarize it, do you think that adds to the discussion? I think it’s silly that I have to explain this to someone who claims to have read the article in question; this is particularly ironic when that someone is talking about “competent readership”. I’ll invite you to be more civil in the future.
  - ggm 9y ago
    I’ll invite you to be more civil in the future. Civility (in my understanding of it) is precisely what was missing from your first posting. The irony here, is supreme. "why did you bother posting" is a remarkably un-civil thing to say. They bothered posting because they were interested. [edit: which was precisely why I posted in the first place. I don't know the first respondent from a bar of soap and I don't date their sister. I just thought you could have said your rebuttal more kindly. Civilly even)
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      It’s frustrating that you still can’t see how you’re being rude and wrong, but at this point I’ll just take to heart the old advice of there always being someone wrong on the Internet. > “why did you bother posting" is a remarkably un-civil thing to say. They bothered posting because they were interested. Why are you quoting words that I (verifiably) didn’t say? I think you ought to realize that if you have to put words in someone’s mouth to argue against them, you are certainly being both (1) uncivil and (2) wrong. If I had said what you said, that would have been rude. Again, please try to be more civil in the future, and please try to read HN’s guidelines on the matter. I’ll leave it at that.

gnarbarian 9y ago

A succinct summary of a 3,000 word article is often valuable.

jonathanyc 9y ago
Sure, if it were a summary. You conveniently left out everything but the title, and ignored entirely the points of the anthroplogists/archaeologists, instead caricaturizing them as “afraid of the results.” As an engineer, this is disappointing.

ggm 9y ago

Since any competent reader could make the same inferential judgement you did by reading both the original article and the comment, I'm not sure why you made this comment.

jonathanyc 9y ago
Suppose an article is about some group claiming X and some group responding with Y; the conclusion of the article is that X is mostly true, but Y has some good points. If someone comments “I think X! People who think Y are wrong,” i.e. with a comment that contains not only a strict subset of the content of the article, but one that fails to summarize it, do you think that adds to the discussion? I think it’s silly that I have to explain this to someone who claims to have read the article in question; this is particularly ironic when that someone is talking about “competent readership”. I’ll invite you to be more civil in the future.
- ggm 9y ago
  I’ll invite you to be more civil in the future. Civility (in my understanding of it) is precisely what was missing from your first posting. The irony here, is supreme. "why did you bother posting" is a remarkably un-civil thing to say. They bothered posting because they were interested. [edit: which was precisely why I posted in the first place. I don't know the first respondent from a bar of soap and I don't date their sister. I just thought you could have said your rebuttal more kindly. Civilly even)
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    It’s frustrating that you still can’t see how you’re being rude and wrong, but at this point I’ll just take to heart the old advice of there always being someone wrong on the Internet. > “why did you bother posting" is a remarkably un-civil thing to say. They bothered posting because they were interested. Why are you quoting words that I (verifiably) didn’t say? I think you ought to realize that if you have to put words in someone’s mouth to argue against them, you are certainly being both (1) uncivil and (2) wrong. If I had said what you said, that would have been rude. Again, please try to be more civil in the future, and please try to read HN’s guidelines on the matter. I’ll leave it at that.