3 ms·
Didn't down vote, but a possible reason for doing that would be that "his predation of women in the department" is accusatory but vague. It speaks ill of Kripke
by nsajko 4y ago
Didn't down vote, but a possible reason for doing that would be that "his predation of women in the department" is accusatory but vague. It speaks ill of Kripke, but if you disagree with the statement there's no point in replying to it because the statement itself basically isn't refutable.
- gumby 4y agoThanks. I think it's reasonable to ask an epistemic question about such an assertion. People sometimes respond with a single-word comment, "Source?", which sparks such a thread. Despite its brevity I (and apparently most HN readers) consider it a substantive comment. In the case of my GP comment, I mentioned how I learned of it with that in mind. In my case, still hearsay of course.