8 ms·
You've had three, (now four) people explicitly mention that your comment was needlessly hostile. To each of those people, you've responded defensively. I would
by claytongulick 5y ago
You've had three, (now four) people explicitly mention that your comment was needlessly hostile. To each of those people, you've responded defensively.
I would suggest that you carefully review what was written, what you wrote, what the feedback from it was, and consider if there is room for improvement rather than just digging in.
- acdha 5y agoSince your reply was cordial, I'll note that I probably would have used wording to make it more clear that I was specifically unimpressed by the use of terms like hype or what read as the implication that there's been a widespread representation that a cure is close. I've typically only seen that in the context of the various scam claims over the years, not mainstream research — the coverage I've read since at least the 90s always mentioned it as a very hard target a long time off. Maybe I'm a bit biased from having worked at some places where researchers were working on problems like this but it felt unfair to focus on that but not mention that there are now mainstream treatments developed as part of that work which have made a huge improvement for millions of people globally.