4 ms·

Refute what the article is saying, not your generous interpretation of it. If the author wanted to make such an extraordinary claim, they should have presented

by vore 3y ago

Refute what the article is saying, not your generous interpretation of it. If the author wanted to make such an extraordinary claim, they should have presented extraordinary evidence.

jjulius 3y ago
... what are you even talking about? You said... >It would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted. ... and then all I said was that I don't think it would be so obvious to the average end-user. That's it. I made no comment on the article, let alone any kind of interpretation of it. Why are you being so aggressive?
- zen928 3y ago
  because you're taking the authors ridiculous claim and downgrading it to be reasonable instead of critiquing the original claim, all of this stemming from you taking a quote out of context to make a point that no one was making. the slice of the quote you responded with: > It would be extremely obvious [...] and the full claim with full proper context: > It would be [...] obvious if your searches were [...] egregiously converted. the key word being "egregiously", which is a response to the level of severity the author is making in their claim. trying to be an enforcer of conversational tone by repeatedly claiming how responses that you don't want to engage in are "aggressive" isn't conducive to productive discussion. no one's being overtly hostile, outside of you trying to hijack a discussion to exclusively entertain a nonsequitor.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    >because you're taking the authors ridiculous claim and downgrading it to be reasonable instead... At no point have I quoted the article or explicitly suggested that what is said in the article is not taking place. >... all of this stemming from you taking a quote out of context to make a point that no one was making. OP made a point clear, that "it would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted". Whether or not I quote the full sentence doesn't change the fact that, no, I do not believe that average end users would find it "extremely obvious [that] ... their searches were being so egregiously converted". And that's literally all I've said here - that I don't think end users would be as perceptive of something like this as OP would think. >... the key word being "egregiously", which is a response to the level of severity the author is making in their claim. Whether or not I quote the word "egregiously" does not change my point, nor does it suggest that I've decided to ignore the word and "downgrade" what's said in the article because of it. I'm struggling to understand how you both seem to be unable to understand something so simple. Feel free to disagree with what I said, but don't twist my words around if you don't like that point. >trying to be an enforcer of conversational tone by repeatedly claiming how responses that you don't want to engage in are "aggressive" isn't conducive to productive discussion. no one's being overtly hostile, outside of you trying to hijack a discussion to exclusively entertain a nonsequitor. Responding to me with, "That's what you should be saying," and, "Refute what the article is saying, not your generous interpretation of it," is aggressive, if not rude at the very least. It demonstrates that OP (and you, now) are both missing the point (willfully, it seems, since I have to keep repeating myself over something so simplistic) and are twisting my words, or how I've chosen to quote a passage, around. I know that it's pretty uncouth to trot this out, but my initial comment has a good number of upvotes (so does the comment you just replied to), so there are people out there who have a better understanding of my comment than y'all seem to have. I am not downgrading anything - I genuinely believe that it's not so obvious to the average end user, no matter how egregious it might be. And that's a refutation of OP's comment, not the article.

by vore 3y ago

Refute what the article is saying, not your generous interpretation of it. If the author wanted to make such an extraordinary claim, they should have presented extraordinary evidence.

jjulius 3y ago

... what are you even talking about? You said... >It would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted. ... and then all I said was that I don't think it would be so obvious to the average end-user. That's it. I made no comment on the article, let alone any kind of interpretation of it. Why are you being so aggressive?

zen928 3y ago
because you're taking the authors ridiculous claim and downgrading it to be reasonable instead of critiquing the original claim, all of this stemming from you taking a quote out of context to make a point that no one was making. the slice of the quote you responded with: > It would be extremely obvious [...] and the full claim with full proper context: > It would be [...] obvious if your searches were [...] egregiously converted. the key word being "egregiously", which is a response to the level of severity the author is making in their claim. trying to be an enforcer of conversational tone by repeatedly claiming how responses that you don't want to engage in are "aggressive" isn't conducive to productive discussion. no one's being overtly hostile, outside of you trying to hijack a discussion to exclusively entertain a nonsequitor.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >because you're taking the authors ridiculous claim and downgrading it to be reasonable instead... At no point have I quoted the article or explicitly suggested that what is said in the article is not taking place. >... all of this stemming from you taking a quote out of context to make a point that no one was making. OP made a point clear, that "it would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted". Whether or not I quote the full sentence doesn't change the fact that, no, I do not believe that average end users would find it "extremely obvious [that] ... their searches were being so egregiously converted". And that's literally all I've said here - that I don't think end users would be as perceptive of something like this as OP would think. >... the key word being "egregiously", which is a response to the level of severity the author is making in their claim. Whether or not I quote the word "egregiously" does not change my point, nor does it suggest that I've decided to ignore the word and "downgrade" what's said in the article because of it. I'm struggling to understand how you both seem to be unable to understand something so simple. Feel free to disagree with what I said, but don't twist my words around if you don't like that point. >trying to be an enforcer of conversational tone by repeatedly claiming how responses that you don't want to engage in are "aggressive" isn't conducive to productive discussion. no one's being overtly hostile, outside of you trying to hijack a discussion to exclusively entertain a nonsequitor. Responding to me with, "That's what you should be saying," and, "Refute what the article is saying, not your generous interpretation of it," is aggressive, if not rude at the very least. It demonstrates that OP (and you, now) are both missing the point (willfully, it seems, since I have to keep repeating myself over something so simplistic) and are twisting my words, or how I've chosen to quote a passage, around. I know that it's pretty uncouth to trot this out, but my initial comment has a good number of upvotes (so does the comment you just replied to), so there are people out there who have a better understanding of my comment than y'all seem to have. I am not downgrading anything - I genuinely believe that it's not so obvious to the average end user, no matter how egregious it might be. And that's a refutation of OP's comment, not the article.