3 ms·

> That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats Sure! There was already someone else who mad

> That's why I insist that you do post it, in the place where it's the most relevant, with the appropriate caveats Sure! There was already someone else who made a post similar to that (which is the top-post on the thread). I also replied to that one, to reinforce the point. So...done. > But the other side of that is making an effort to post it where the opposite claim is actually asserted Yep, I did that too! In fact, my first posts were mostly questions, and those formed into more concrete posts once I felt I understood the mistake of the article well enough. After I had done those two things you suggested, I also responded to a handful of posts from people who looked like they had interpreted the article as being accurate when it wasn't. I'm not trying to disagree with your point! I just wanted to let you, and people reading your comment know that it wasn't accurate (as was described in the headline of the post and the article) in this case. Fair enough that it would be unfair to only comment on your post as my only comment in the thread! I didn't do that, though. > And not in a way that implies no one should care about the general issue. I can see how my initial comment came across that way, but that wasn't my intent and I apologize that it reads that way. I'll try and be less dismissive of the meta-point in the future.

SilasX 5y ago
>I'm not trying to disagree with your point! I just wanted to let you, and people reading your comment know that it wasn't accurate (as was described in the headline of the post and the article) in this case. Then you did it incorrectly, because you worded it as: >>>Except...the University in this case hasn't said ... That is, my point is wrong, because this one case isn't actually happen. But my comment doesn't depend on this incident having actually happened! (It simply points out that this would be the natural outgrowth of the incentives, and that the hive mind would be inconsistent to object.) If you were actually trying to do what you claimed, the appropriate way is to indicate it's a nitpick or that it doesn't affect the general point, or that you're just saying that to avoid a misconception that someone might get from the article (and not my comment) -- not to write it as a point of refutation, as you did.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  Sure, totally granted and fair enough that my writing didn't convey my intent correctly. My intent was for "Except" to apply specifically to "University: <Monitors social media>", which was the part I was trying to indicate wasn't factual in this instance. Again, I can totally understand how it reads as I'm disagreeing with the meta-point, and I'm sorry again that my writing failed to be precise enough to match my intent.

SilasX 5y ago

>I'm not trying to disagree with your point! I just wanted to let you, and people reading your comment know that it wasn't accurate (as was described in the headline of the post and the article) in this case. Then you did it incorrectly, because you worded it as: >>>Except...the University in this case hasn't said ... That is, my point is wrong, because this one case isn't actually happen. But my comment doesn't depend on this incident having actually happened! (It simply points out that this would be the natural outgrowth of the incentives, and that the hive mind would be inconsistent to object.) If you were actually trying to do what you claimed, the appropriate way is to indicate it's a nitpick or that it doesn't affect the general point, or that you're just saying that to avoid a misconception that someone might get from the article (and not my comment) -- not to write it as a point of refutation, as you did.

ncallaway 5y ago
Sure, totally granted and fair enough that my writing didn't convey my intent correctly. My intent was for "Except" to apply specifically to "University: <Monitors social media>", which was the part I was trying to indicate wasn't factual in this instance. Again, I can totally understand how it reads as I'm disagreeing with the meta-point, and I'm sorry again that my writing failed to be precise enough to match my intent.