5 ms·
I was replying to your comment, and your response was much more general and invited other discussion. You should reread it if you need a refresher. Aside from
by adam_arthur 3y ago
I was replying to your comment, and your response was much more general and invited other discussion. You should reread it if you need a refresher.
Aside from that fact, how about discussing ideas rather than pedantic back and forths over he said she said? Not interested in that kind of discussion
- ska 3y agoI had addressed the wider point I thought, apologies if not clear enough. The mere existence of a failure, without other data, simply isn't good evidence for anything you have claimed, and any assertion that "it's usually X" needs pretty serious support to be taken seriously. It's a complicated area, and reducing it too much leads to oversimplification at best.