5 ms·

You’re free to chime in with your own thoughts. Just don’t bother with the ad hominem stuff.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hunterb123 5y ago
That was my own thought. It wasn't an attack at you, just a PSA to think about what you see online. Personally, the red flags from your post were that you have hardly any post history, you came out claimed to be a munitions/explosives expert, usually you don't have to do that, the knowledge speaks for itself. Your rebuttal didn't seem to be as strong compared to GPs reasoning, and it ended with a conclusion that seemed to be more of an opinion, not objective reasoning. -- I don't think the ad hominem attack by (epgui) and (jaquesm) is warranted, it definitely isn't "Fact". I reply to many topics both political and technical, as does everyone. If I have such a consistent track record of "patently unreasonable comments" then you should be able to support your argument. Again, I did not mean any offense by my initial statement.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    > Neither do you. I'm not claiming to be anything. > Why should they not? There's no rule against it, it's just a red flag > But it gives context. Not really anymore than going into the details of explosives. > That's your opinion. Yes it's my opinion, I never claimed it as fact. That's why I used "seemed".
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > it's just a red flag No, it really isn't. If someone is an expert in some field then that is good context to have. If there was something that you disagreed with in that post you should have engaged with that like others did instead of trying to discredit the poster based on your personal idea of what is an accounts credibility status.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        You're taking my initial warning too personally. I was simply cautioning everyone to think about what they see online during this time especially. Personally, orbital-decay's reasoning was more sound and expansive than master_crab's. The source drop that provided no context was a red flag in my eyes combined with the direct countering without sound reasoning. I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert. Again, I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies, which could be viewed as "discrediting", but I didn't want to divulge those opinions in the first place because it's distracting. - EDIT because post limit - > @jacquesm: The irony. Not really. I initially didn't want to share it, that paragraph was my personal opinion and the last sentence of the paragraph was me saying I didn't want to share it, but I had to in later replies because of the fuss. You left out the context of: > I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        > Personally, orbital-decay's reasoning was more sound and expansive than master_crab's. > I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert. The irony.
epgui 5y ago
Don't bother with hunterb123, this user (hunterb123) has a consistent track record of posting patently unreasonable comments on a variety of different topics. I know my comment is ad hominem, but track records count for something, and while they have no bearing on the value of an argument, they sure should affect your degree of suspicion and scrutiny of said argument.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Fact.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

That was my own thought. It wasn't an attack at you, just a PSA to think about what you see online. Personally, the red flags from your post were that you have hardly any post history, you came out claimed to be a munitions/explosives expert, usually you don't have to do that, the knowledge speaks for itself. Your rebuttal didn't seem to be as strong compared to GPs reasoning, and it ended with a conclusion that seemed to be more of an opinion, not objective reasoning. -- I don't think the ad hominem attack by (epgui) and (jaquesm) is warranted, it definitely isn't "Fact". I reply to many topics both political and technical, as does everyone. If I have such a consistent track record of "patently unreasonable comments" then you should be able to support your argument. Again, I did not mean any offense by my initial statement.

jacquesm 5y ago
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > Neither do you. I'm not claiming to be anything. > Why should they not? There's no rule against it, it's just a red flag > But it gives context. Not really anymore than going into the details of explosives. > That's your opinion. Yes it's my opinion, I never claimed it as fact. That's why I used "seemed".
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > it's just a red flag No, it really isn't. If someone is an expert in some field then that is good context to have. If there was something that you disagreed with in that post you should have engaged with that like others did instead of trying to discredit the poster based on your personal idea of what is an accounts credibility status.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      You're taking my initial warning too personally. I was simply cautioning everyone to think about what they see online during this time especially. Personally, orbital-decay's reasoning was more sound and expansive than master_crab's. The source drop that provided no context was a red flag in my eyes combined with the direct countering without sound reasoning. I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert. Again, I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies, which could be viewed as "discrediting", but I didn't want to divulge those opinions in the first place because it's distracting. - EDIT because post limit - > @jacquesm: The irony. Not really. I initially didn't want to share it, that paragraph was my personal opinion and the last sentence of the paragraph was me saying I didn't want to share it, but I had to in later replies because of the fuss. You left out the context of: > I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        > Personally, orbital-decay's reasoning was more sound and expansive than master_crab's. > I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert. The irony.

epgui 5y ago

Don't bother with hunterb123, this user (hunterb123) has a consistent track record of posting patently unreasonable comments on a variety of different topics. I know my comment is ad hominem, but track records count for something, and while they have no bearing on the value of an argument, they sure should affect your degree of suspicion and scrutiny of said argument.

jacquesm 5y ago
Fact.