4 ms·

Refute the critics, not sue the critics.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 8y ago
Regardless of what your opinion of the author's character (and my polite rebuttal to look at the data instead), you might be biased on the topic [1]. I'm attempting to discuss from a place of intellectual honesty, and I expect the same from others. "And it’s the 21st century — its embarrassing that we are talking about wind energy!" "Simply put, we need nuclear power. We need to spend more time and energy trying to innovate on nuclear energy. That’s what is needed to support the power needs of 10 billion people who will have the energy demands of a modern western nation today. Solar and wind will just not cut it." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907686
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Hang on. Didn't you just say, "Judge the math not the man." What are the ground rules here. Are we allowed to take into account authors' previous bad behavior or aren't we?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > What are the ground rules here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. " "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      Sure, I agree with all that. But you're dismissing the parent poster based on his comment history, while castigating him for dismissing your link based on the author's lawsuit history. That seems a little inconsistent to me, is all I'm saying. Personally, I think a history of suing one's critics does open one's subsequent work up to significantly increased skepticism from the community, because it's a strong signal that something's off. There's some norm-breaking going on. I wish I could read this article but it seems like it's behind a paywall.
- kortilla 8y ago
  Posting rational thoughts in other threads does not mean you are biased in everything else. Unless you mean the author is biased against dogma?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Regardless of what your opinion of the author's character (and my polite rebuttal to look at the data instead), you might be biased on the topic [1]. I'm attempting to discuss from a place of intellectual honesty, and I expect the same from others. "And it’s the 21st century — its embarrassing that we are talking about wind energy!" "Simply put, we need nuclear power. We need to spend more time and energy trying to innovate on nuclear energy. That’s what is needed to support the power needs of 10 billion people who will have the energy demands of a modern western nation today. Solar and wind will just not cut it." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18907686

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Hang on. Didn't you just say, "Judge the math not the man." What are the ground rules here. Are we allowed to take into account authors' previous bad behavior or aren't we?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > What are the ground rules here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. " "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    Sure, I agree with all that. But you're dismissing the parent poster based on his comment history, while castigating him for dismissing your link based on the author's lawsuit history. That seems a little inconsistent to me, is all I'm saying. Personally, I think a history of suing one's critics does open one's subsequent work up to significantly increased skepticism from the community, because it's a strong signal that something's off. There's some norm-breaking going on. I wish I could read this article but it seems like it's behind a paywall.
kortilla 8y ago
Posting rational thoughts in other threads does not mean you are biased in everything else. Unless you mean the author is biased against dogma?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]