4 ms·
I knew you were saying one of a couple rather weird things. I still don't know which, but I thought the substance of my comment addressed all of them and you ha
by andrewflnr 3y ago
I knew you were saying one of a couple rather weird things. I still don't know which, but I thought the substance of my comment addressed all of them and you haven't bothered to respond to that, so I guess my point stands? We were both nitpicking, so you don't get to claim the high ground.
- refulgentis 3y agoI'm not arguing with you at all, it wouldn't make any sense to, you're not making any claim other than imagining I claimed articles where the journalist doesn't know anything about the topic are always good. Recap: I observed the thread was absurd because: - it opened complaining about the science journalist writer who didn't know the topic. - after it was resolved the author wasn't a science journalist or someone who didn't know anything, people were arguing about the stack-ranking of the imaginary science journalist Now you're here, continuing to argue against a strawman for no discernable reason. We all get it, you and some other people are making sure we understand we're wrong, it can be bad when people write things they don't know about.
- andrewflnr 3y ago> you're not making any claim other than imagining I claimed articles where the journalist doesn't know anything about the topic are always good. I definitely never argued or even believed any such thing. I started off in this (granted, rather silly) thread with a lukewarm defense of Hossenfelder, then you took a weird tangent on it and I disagreed with your framing (or what I could grok of it). Maybe you have me confused with someone else?