3 ms·

I don’t follow the discussion between the plural you; the discussion that happened here on HN was that I provided sources, and you ignored them.

• aspenmayer 6y ago
  You posted one inconclusive Wikipedia article, and no further links to primary sources, by my count. And you would have me find this lack of adequate sourcing acceptable. I don’t. Despite your attempt, bare minimum that it was, I remain unconvinced. If you wanted to appeal to your sources, link one. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; it is not a primary source. This concept is subtle to some people. I did not mean to be confusing in that regard. Am I missing anything?
  • dang 6y ago
    Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It only makes the thread even worse. Please avoid tedious tit-for-tats also. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • aspenmayer 6y ago
      I can only do as well as the debate and my debate partners allow. No offense intended; I am trying to ascertain the truth claims and justifications of my partner’s statements of fact and their position on the topic. I didn’t choose this topic, I just have standards of sourcing that may be unfamiliar to others. That’s why I asked for sources before continuing. I seek to figure out why we disagree, and what we disagree about and why. I can’t comment on why none were provided beyond the initial Wikipedia page, which is inconclusive on the topic of this discussion, making it a uniquely unhelpful source to use in a discussion of this ambiguity.
• dang 6y ago
  Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It only makes the thread even worse. Please avoid tedious tit-for-tats also. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • trasz 6y ago
    I'll try.