3 ms·

... Egregiously? Really? Shit, what would a _mildly bad_ comment look like? It's also weird that you'd take issue with my comment and not the one I'm replying

... Egregiously? Really? Shit, what would a _mildly bad_ comment look like? It's also weird that you'd take issue with my comment and not the one I'm replying to. Did you read it? It's got literally 7 kinds of deliberately crafted misinformation.

dekhn 5y ago
there's no deliberately crafted misinformation in my comment. It's a simple and straightforward evaluation of the reliable evidence we have so far.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  > Are you a scientist? Implying only scientists can have opinions based on evidence. > I was. Argument from "authority" (without evidence btw). > I can tell you that all of those quotes require a great deal of inspection and you cannot take them at face value. Hand waving. > At the very least, most scientists speak ultra-confidently about this beliefs Not true at all. > (beyond their own internal level of confidence) because they've learned to use narrative techniques to make their beliefs sound true. You're thinking of storytellers. > Any scientist who is actively speculating that this funding is "strong evidence" rather than saying "it's logically consistent and seems more than coincidental" is just wrong. That's not true, considering that "Peter Daszak, despite coming out forcefully against the lab leak theory, and purposely downplaying his involvement with the lab in so doing, and being inexplicably selected as a member of the WHO team to investigate the lab origin theory, completely neglected to mention having made this proposal a mere two years prior", as well as myriad other deliberate misinformation from Peter. > That's a big mistake a lot of the early folks who claiimed it was human engineered made. There was more than enough evidence to warrant an international independent inspection of both labs in Wuhan. Location alone was enough, without everything else. > The evidence is not strong, but not strong enough to convince a rational person. Implying rational people will come to the same conclusion as you, despite all the above. I say all this because you claim to be the rational scientist in the room, when actually there's so much smoke in the room that anyone saying there's no fire needs a strong head check. Smell the air: smells like smoke - and something else.
dang 5y ago
Your comment consisted of nothing other than calling someone full of shit. (Doing it euphemistically doesn't change this.) That's obviously against the site guidelines and correctly flagged. Then you made sinister insinuations as if the flags weren't an obvious consequence of what you'd posted. Please read the site guidelines and don't post anything like that to HN again - you actually already did it again downthread ("Smell the air: smells like smoke - and something else"). Flouting the rules like that, after we specifically asked you to stop, will get you banned here. Pointing the finger at someone else isn't a very tasteful way to respond about your own behavior, but as it happens, I don't see how the other comment broke the guidelines. The commenter may be 100% wrong, but there's no rule against being wrong on HN. If someone else is wrong and you know the truth, the thing to do is patiently and respectfully provide correct information and better arguments. Name-calling is definitely not ok, and please stop posting in the flamewar style. It's the opposite of what we want here. What we want is described well in this sentence pg wrote years ago: Comments should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  First "egregious violations" and now "sinister insinuations"... You are a trip. Literally that guy and you downvoted me, it's doubtful anyone else even saw the thread. And I stand by those "sinister insinuations", for the record. There is no way, none, that multiple commenters found this old dead thread, moved to the second page, and flagged my comment within minutes of its posting. Occam's razor would suggest that OP has the power to flag people single handed. I notice that you say "we" asked you. Is this the 'royal' we? Are there multiple people behind this account? Dang, feel free to take this the wrong way, but I think you could use a perspective check. I've heard that acting as a gatekeeper too long can inflate one's ego. Ask yourself if you're doing as much good here as you used to. While we're chatting all friendly; do you ever wonder what the real life consequences of removing that story about Gina Haspel all those times are? I think about it a lot. I wonder if you give even a tiny little shit about helping cover for such a ghoul. My nightmare is that you rationalised that ghastly act so well, you don't even remember doing it. Don't take that as pointing the finger to deflect from my own horrific actions, lol. I genuinely wonder how you live with doing that all the time, and now seems a good time to ask you - you must have a great view up there on that moral high ground.

dekhn 5y ago

there's no deliberately crafted misinformation in my comment. It's a simple and straightforward evaluation of the reliable evidence we have so far.

mandmandam 5y ago
> Are you a scientist? Implying only scientists can have opinions based on evidence. > I was. Argument from "authority" (without evidence btw). > I can tell you that all of those quotes require a great deal of inspection and you cannot take them at face value. Hand waving. > At the very least, most scientists speak ultra-confidently about this beliefs Not true at all. > (beyond their own internal level of confidence) because they've learned to use narrative techniques to make their beliefs sound true. You're thinking of storytellers. > Any scientist who is actively speculating that this funding is "strong evidence" rather than saying "it's logically consistent and seems more than coincidental" is just wrong. That's not true, considering that "Peter Daszak, despite coming out forcefully against the lab leak theory, and purposely downplaying his involvement with the lab in so doing, and being inexplicably selected as a member of the WHO team to investigate the lab origin theory, completely neglected to mention having made this proposal a mere two years prior", as well as myriad other deliberate misinformation from Peter. > That's a big mistake a lot of the early folks who claiimed it was human engineered made. There was more than enough evidence to warrant an international independent inspection of both labs in Wuhan. Location alone was enough, without everything else. > The evidence is not strong, but not strong enough to convince a rational person. Implying rational people will come to the same conclusion as you, despite all the above. I say all this because you claim to be the rational scientist in the room, when actually there's so much smoke in the room that anyone saying there's no fire needs a strong head check. Smell the air: smells like smoke - and something else.

dang 5y ago

Your comment consisted of nothing other than calling someone full of shit. (Doing it euphemistically doesn't change this.) That's obviously against the site guidelines and correctly flagged. Then you made sinister insinuations as if the flags weren't an obvious consequence of what you'd posted. Please read the site guidelines and don't post anything like that to HN again - you actually already did it again downthread ("Smell the air: smells like smoke - and something else"). Flouting the rules like that, after we specifically asked you to stop, will get you banned here. Pointing the finger at someone else isn't a very tasteful way to respond about your own behavior, but as it happens, I don't see how the other comment broke the guidelines. The commenter may be 100% wrong, but there's no rule against being wrong on HN. If someone else is wrong and you know the truth, the thing to do is patiently and respectfully provide correct information and better arguments. Name-calling is definitely not ok, and please stop posting in the flamewar style. It's the opposite of what we want here. What we want is described well in this sentence pg wrote years ago: Comments should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side.

mandmandam 5y ago
First "egregious violations" and now "sinister insinuations"... You are a trip. Literally that guy and you downvoted me, it's doubtful anyone else even saw the thread. And I stand by those "sinister insinuations", for the record. There is no way, none, that multiple commenters found this old dead thread, moved to the second page, and flagged my comment within minutes of its posting. Occam's razor would suggest that OP has the power to flag people single handed. I notice that you say "we" asked you. Is this the 'royal' we? Are there multiple people behind this account? Dang, feel free to take this the wrong way, but I think you could use a perspective check. I've heard that acting as a gatekeeper too long can inflate one's ego. Ask yourself if you're doing as much good here as you used to. While we're chatting all friendly; do you ever wonder what the real life consequences of removing that story about Gina Haspel all those times are? I think about it a lot. I wonder if you give even a tiny little shit about helping cover for such a ghoul. My nightmare is that you rationalised that ghastly act so well, you don't even remember doing it. Don't take that as pointing the finger to deflect from my own horrific actions, lol. I genuinely wonder how you live with doing that all the time, and now seems a good time to ask you - you must have a great view up there on that moral high ground.