28 ms·

You're wording this in a way that's deliberately representing your ideological opponents in the worst possible faith and light, and if nothing else it demonstra

You're wording this in a way that's deliberately representing your ideological opponents in the worst possible faith and light, and if nothing else it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of not only the views of your opponents, but of people who would be sympathetic to your views if you would take ten seconds to apply tact to your words. This is the exact opposite of a good-faith argument and a demonstration of exactly the reason why having a person with tact give a speech for outreach is critical.

civilized 5y ago
I'm baffled by this response. I've done my best to summarize what you seem to be saying and what I see as the blind spots. I don't even see you as an opponent. We seem to disagree on a particular PR tactic and how it plays with the public. Is "I get what you're saying and it's reasonable" something that a person who is deliberately trying to represent your ideas in the worst possible light would say?
- dang 5y ago
  You guys are both putting too much energy into commenting about the "you" at the other end of the discussion. Not only is it leading you to break the site guidelines, it makes the discussion noisier and more tedious for everybody else. You both have interesting points to make. If you'd stick to making them substantively, thoughtfully, and respectfully, the thread would be much better. "Respectfully" generally includes avoiding telling people things about themselves that are not likely to land well. There are times when that's necessary, but talking to strangers over the internet is not one of them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 5y ago
You guys are both putting too much energy into commenting about the "you" at the other end of the discussion. Not only is it leading you to break the site guidelines, it makes the discussion noisier and more tedious for everybody else. You both have interesting points to make. If you'd stick to making them substantively, thoughtfully, and respectfully, the thread would be much better. "Respectfully" generally includes avoiding telling people things about themselves that are not likely to land well. There are times when that's necessary, but talking to strangers over the internet is not one of them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- civilized 5y ago
  Thanks dang. I agree with you completely after seeing the results. If I could edit those comments at this point I would. I've done my best with the ones I still can.
poetaster 5y ago
Who is imputing that a nationwide published scientist has no tact but is themself the model of said tact. Myopic.

civilized 5y ago

I'm baffled by this response. I've done my best to summarize what you seem to be saying and what I see as the blind spots. I don't even see you as an opponent. We seem to disagree on a particular PR tactic and how it plays with the public. Is "I get what you're saying and it's reasonable" something that a person who is deliberately trying to represent your ideas in the worst possible light would say?

dang 5y ago
You guys are both putting too much energy into commenting about the "you" at the other end of the discussion. Not only is it leading you to break the site guidelines, it makes the discussion noisier and more tedious for everybody else. You both have interesting points to make. If you'd stick to making them substantively, thoughtfully, and respectfully, the thread would be much better. "Respectfully" generally includes avoiding telling people things about themselves that are not likely to land well. There are times when that's necessary, but talking to strangers over the internet is not one of them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 5y ago

You guys are both putting too much energy into commenting about the "you" at the other end of the discussion. Not only is it leading you to break the site guidelines, it makes the discussion noisier and more tedious for everybody else. You both have interesting points to make. If you'd stick to making them substantively, thoughtfully, and respectfully, the thread would be much better. "Respectfully" generally includes avoiding telling people things about themselves that are not likely to land well. There are times when that's necessary, but talking to strangers over the internet is not one of them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

civilized 5y ago
Thanks dang. I agree with you completely after seeing the results. If I could edit those comments at this point I would. I've done my best with the ones I still can.

poetaster 5y ago

Who is imputing that a nationwide published scientist has no tact but is themself the model of said tact. Myopic.