4 ms·

You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hund

You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition? "To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian newspeak, and disengenous.

cbsmith 5y ago
No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all. To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking. Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  So what you're saying.... is that instead of violently threatening me.... you were baselessly calling me stupid?? Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    > you were baselessly calling me stupid?? No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative. > Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? Maybe you posted references elsewhere, but the comment I was responding to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146) did not contain any references. As I felt I was responding to a Gish Gallop, I didn't provide any references either, though I made references to facts that are easily verifiable from a number of sources. Is there something specific I said that you cannot verify? Now you are claiming the information I provided in my response was false, but you haven't made any specific claims about a statement I made that was false. The closest you came to such a statement would be be your reiteration about the disease's survival rate (and if you're looking for a citation on how disease survival rate is computed: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/disease-specific-survival-rate https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term...). In general, "unsourced false fear mongering information" feels like a case of projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying we should be fearful of the vaccines by making unsourced statements that at the most charitable could be described as misleading? > You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people. Again, this feels like projection, but I'm not sure what "Facebook science" is. Can you define it and provide an example of something I've posted that is "Facebook science"? Again, I made a comment I shouldn't have, and I understand you read it as a personal attack. It was a derogatory statement (which again, I should not have done), but it was derogatory towards the comments you made, and not you personally. If anything, I was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      It WAS a personal attack that you did. And you're still doing it! "was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation." "feels like a case of projection" You're saying in so many words I'm stupid and not in control of my thoughts. You have NO citations for anything you have said except for survival rate and you're manipulating that survival rate number by using people who are already infected versus general population survival rate. You're spending all of your time telling me I'm projecting and not enough time having an actual valid point. Not a single hospital was overwhelmed in the United States and numerous other countries. Almost every state in the country has seen through the faulty science that you're promoting...and eliminated most of not all Covid restrictions and we're not even at a 50% vaccination rate and fatality and infection rates are at record lows and not a single hospital has overflowed or will. So what you're saying is straight up wrong. That's Facebook science.

cbsmith 5y ago

No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all. To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking. Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
So what you're saying.... is that instead of violently threatening me.... you were baselessly calling me stupid?? Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.
- cbsmith 5y ago
  > you were baselessly calling me stupid?? No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative. > Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? Maybe you posted references elsewhere, but the comment I was responding to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146) did not contain any references. As I felt I was responding to a Gish Gallop, I didn't provide any references either, though I made references to facts that are easily verifiable from a number of sources. Is there something specific I said that you cannot verify? Now you are claiming the information I provided in my response was false, but you haven't made any specific claims about a statement I made that was false. The closest you came to such a statement would be be your reiteration about the disease's survival rate (and if you're looking for a citation on how disease survival rate is computed: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/disease-specific-survival-rate https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term...). In general, "unsourced false fear mongering information" feels like a case of projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying we should be fearful of the vaccines by making unsourced statements that at the most charitable could be described as misleading? > You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people. Again, this feels like projection, but I'm not sure what "Facebook science" is. Can you define it and provide an example of something I've posted that is "Facebook science"? Again, I made a comment I shouldn't have, and I understand you read it as a personal attack. It was a derogatory statement (which again, I should not have done), but it was derogatory towards the comments you made, and not you personally. If anything, I was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    It WAS a personal attack that you did. And you're still doing it! "was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation." "feels like a case of projection" You're saying in so many words I'm stupid and not in control of my thoughts. You have NO citations for anything you have said except for survival rate and you're manipulating that survival rate number by using people who are already infected versus general population survival rate. You're spending all of your time telling me I'm projecting and not enough time having an actual valid point. Not a single hospital was overwhelmed in the United States and numerous other countries. Almost every state in the country has seen through the faulty science that you're promoting...and eliminated most of not all Covid restrictions and we're not even at a 50% vaccination rate and fatality and infection rates are at record lows and not a single hospital has overflowed or will. So what you're saying is straight up wrong. That's Facebook science.