3 ms·

Not accepting claims is different from anti elon bias. You say X is good or bad, my response is prove it. You say X is meaningful, I have the same response. Tha

Not accepting claims is different from anti elon bias. You say X is good or bad, my response is prove it. You say X is meaningful, I have the same response. That is not being upset, it is being skeptical. With that said, I now concede there is more than marginal utility happening and I've done the numbers in sibling comments. The fact I've evolved my opinion based on further information I think makes most of your screed moot. > The FIRST RESPONDERS REQUESTED THIS CHANGE, Are you referring to FEMA? Since there is at least one cajun navy style person who requested this that I am aware of, I would largely agree. My contention is whether any of this actually all that meaningful. For that, I'm not going to assume it. Which was my initial position. > and I for sure don't need you 'correcting' me My apologies. I am stuck on a phone and my diligence is not what I would like it to be. Rather than "correcting", I was disagreeing with you (pending more information). I should have said something more like: without yet seeing the full numbers of how much this helping, I am not sure whether this is worst case even more than a non gesture. Since you wrote "worst case", my initial thought is the "worst case" was even lower on the spectrum than "nice: > Every claim you made here is based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Every claim?? Can you give a few examples? This feels like hyperbole. Though, I try not to make unsupported claims. It would be a useful learning to me to know which claims I positively made without facts. (Please keep in mind not accepting claims is very different from putting forward a claim - perhaps you are conflating the two?? If not, I'm happy to apologize and retract any unsupported claims.)

astroid 2y ago
"You say X is good or bad, my response is provd it. You say X is meaningful, I have the same response." - No I didn't. Your bias is showing again. "Are you referring to FEMA? Since there is at least one cajun navy style person who requested this that I am aware of, I would largely agree." No - I am referring to the on the ground actual FIRST responders who were there helping immediately (and continue to volunteer their time, money, and skills) -- not the government agency that came in after. Are the only first responders that matter FEMA? Is this supposed to be some kind of logical fallacy gotcha like "OOOHHHHHHhhhhhh that dude that bought 50 StarLinks on his own credit card and hauled them out to those in need is actually SECOND to respond, doesn't matter if FEMA didn't help those people yet FEMA First, FEMA best." I know off-hand of a handful of volunteers that got over a hundred terminals out -- that could easily make a tangible difference for 1,000s of people alone. I'm sure there are many many more I don't have direct knowledge of. You literally just fake quoted things I never said, misconstrued what I did say, laid out several logical traps, and somehow smugly think that everyone does not see through you. "Every claim?" Yep. Will I continue to dissect your disingenuous points? Nope, my time is more valuable than yours - and it's clear you have no problem pissing yours away to waste mine. Yeah no thanks, I will patiently await your totally non-biased post-mortem-analysis of the data. Until then I have nothing more to say other than I feel sorry for you.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Wow.. what did I fake quote? What claims were unsupported? My question to you whether you were talking about FEMA or civilians was a QUESTION!! It was not a logical trap. I wanted to understand what you were saying better. That you ranted about it, put words into my mouth - does not bode well. It was a clarifying question. I don't need you feeling anything about me just as much as you don't need correcting. I do think you are reading way more into what I'm writing, and are conflating the lack of accepting your claims with making those of my own. If you can clarify, it would be helpful. Otherwise calm down since the personal attacks are not in the spirit of this discussion board.
  - astroid 2y ago
    This is the last thing I am going to say to you, after twice now I have told you I am done with this conversation. There is absolutely nothing further to discuss between us, but I want to make this point abundantly clear for anyone who is clicking 'expand' on all of your downvoted comments: "Is that a real example?" Yes. It was one of the people who were specifically asking that this action be taken, after they cleaned out all of their local home depots and drove them out there and was having trouble with activation. That is just one person out of many who are trying to help, while you spend hours hovering in this thread looking to use your carefully crafted but incredibly transparent attempt to look very 'logical' and 'unbiased' as a cudgel, while you attempt to de-legitimize and minimize their efforts. Again, I feel sorry for you and hope you find peace within yourself (or at least go back to reddit).
    - seadan83 2y ago
      > There is absolutely nothing further to discuss between us I would agree it is better ended. > I want to make this point abundantly clear for anyone who is clicking 'expand' on all of your downvoted comments In a similar vein, you did not identify any fake quotes that you accused me of, nor identified any unsupported claims (though I concede you could have identified one, which was poorly written and reasonably could have been considered a claim) > "Is that a real example?" Yes. That is excellent. Quite cool. > That is just one person out of many who are trying to help, while you spend hours hovering in this thread I am in a hotel right now. Staging and waiting to go in. My presence is not going to be a net benefit right now compared to my own resource usage. I'm going to be in western NC in a few days. FWIW > looking to use your carefully crafted but incredibly transparent attempt to look very 'logical' and 'unbiased' as a cudgel If it looks that way, and I never brought out the cudgel, how do you know it was dishonest and not just questions? I even agreed with and asked if you were talking about citizens or FEMA. You then went off accusing me of laying some trap and all these other things (after I _agreed_ with you!) You further accused me of saying civilians could not be first responders, a diatribe that put your words into my mouth. > while you attempt to de-legitimize and minimize their efforts. Respectfully, you read that in. You attributed motive. I am not a random person on Twitter or reddit just trying to dunk on you. I did not accept, at first read, that "first month free" was significant. I see how it is more so now. (And you accused me of extreme anti-Musk bias, to which is disproven when I say following everything I have changed my perspective. I see how first month free is helpful and supported a significant assistance, of which starlink was a very notable part). Yet, questioning "first month free", does not delegitimize what people are doing. It is skepticism. > hope you find peace within yourself FWIW. I am okay with all of this convo and have never been upset. Annoyed and disappointed perhaps, but not upset. I might not have clearly conveyed everything I wanted to, but my questions were honest questions here. Not logic traps. > (or at least go back to reddit). Ironic since I don't read reddit, and never once started an X (twitter) account. This is why I was pointing out and reminding you to avoid personal attacks & shallow dismissals (per the discussion guidelines). The guidelines say as conversations go on, they should get more interesting. Which is why I asked you to point out unsupported claims so you could illustrate why (and give more information, and add context and light). Instead you tellingly refused to point anything out, resorted to incorrect hyperbole and personal attacks. I feel that was about half of what you wrote in the end. I don't want to close on that. I did find 50% of what you had to say to be informative and genuinely interesting and did cure me of some ignorance (and i feel this would have been a very good convo had we been able to stick to that.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

astroid 2y ago

"You say X is good or bad, my response is provd it. You say X is meaningful, I have the same response." - No I didn't. Your bias is showing again. "Are you referring to FEMA? Since there is at least one cajun navy style person who requested this that I am aware of, I would largely agree." No - I am referring to the on the ground actual FIRST responders who were there helping immediately (and continue to volunteer their time, money, and skills) -- not the government agency that came in after. Are the only first responders that matter FEMA? Is this supposed to be some kind of logical fallacy gotcha like "OOOHHHHHHhhhhhh that dude that bought 50 StarLinks on his own credit card and hauled them out to those in need is actually SECOND to respond, doesn't matter if FEMA didn't help those people yet FEMA First, FEMA best." I know off-hand of a handful of volunteers that got over a hundred terminals out -- that could easily make a tangible difference for 1,000s of people alone. I'm sure there are many many more I don't have direct knowledge of. You literally just fake quoted things I never said, misconstrued what I did say, laid out several logical traps, and somehow smugly think that everyone does not see through you. "Every claim?" Yep. Will I continue to dissect your disingenuous points? Nope, my time is more valuable than yours - and it's clear you have no problem pissing yours away to waste mine. Yeah no thanks, I will patiently await your totally non-biased post-mortem-analysis of the data. Until then I have nothing more to say other than I feel sorry for you.

seadan83 2y ago
Wow.. what did I fake quote? What claims were unsupported? My question to you whether you were talking about FEMA or civilians was a QUESTION!! It was not a logical trap. I wanted to understand what you were saying better. That you ranted about it, put words into my mouth - does not bode well. It was a clarifying question. I don't need you feeling anything about me just as much as you don't need correcting. I do think you are reading way more into what I'm writing, and are conflating the lack of accepting your claims with making those of my own. If you can clarify, it would be helpful. Otherwise calm down since the personal attacks are not in the spirit of this discussion board.
- astroid 2y ago
  This is the last thing I am going to say to you, after twice now I have told you I am done with this conversation. There is absolutely nothing further to discuss between us, but I want to make this point abundantly clear for anyone who is clicking 'expand' on all of your downvoted comments: "Is that a real example?" Yes. It was one of the people who were specifically asking that this action be taken, after they cleaned out all of their local home depots and drove them out there and was having trouble with activation. That is just one person out of many who are trying to help, while you spend hours hovering in this thread looking to use your carefully crafted but incredibly transparent attempt to look very 'logical' and 'unbiased' as a cudgel, while you attempt to de-legitimize and minimize their efforts. Again, I feel sorry for you and hope you find peace within yourself (or at least go back to reddit).
  - seadan83 2y ago
    > There is absolutely nothing further to discuss between us I would agree it is better ended. > I want to make this point abundantly clear for anyone who is clicking 'expand' on all of your downvoted comments In a similar vein, you did not identify any fake quotes that you accused me of, nor identified any unsupported claims (though I concede you could have identified one, which was poorly written and reasonably could have been considered a claim) > "Is that a real example?" Yes. That is excellent. Quite cool. > That is just one person out of many who are trying to help, while you spend hours hovering in this thread I am in a hotel right now. Staging and waiting to go in. My presence is not going to be a net benefit right now compared to my own resource usage. I'm going to be in western NC in a few days. FWIW > looking to use your carefully crafted but incredibly transparent attempt to look very 'logical' and 'unbiased' as a cudgel If it looks that way, and I never brought out the cudgel, how do you know it was dishonest and not just questions? I even agreed with and asked if you were talking about citizens or FEMA. You then went off accusing me of laying some trap and all these other things (after I _agreed_ with you!) You further accused me of saying civilians could not be first responders, a diatribe that put your words into my mouth. > while you attempt to de-legitimize and minimize their efforts. Respectfully, you read that in. You attributed motive. I am not a random person on Twitter or reddit just trying to dunk on you. I did not accept, at first read, that "first month free" was significant. I see how it is more so now. (And you accused me of extreme anti-Musk bias, to which is disproven when I say following everything I have changed my perspective. I see how first month free is helpful and supported a significant assistance, of which starlink was a very notable part). Yet, questioning "first month free", does not delegitimize what people are doing. It is skepticism. > hope you find peace within yourself FWIW. I am okay with all of this convo and have never been upset. Annoyed and disappointed perhaps, but not upset. I might not have clearly conveyed everything I wanted to, but my questions were honest questions here. Not logic traps. > (or at least go back to reddit). Ironic since I don't read reddit, and never once started an X (twitter) account. This is why I was pointing out and reminding you to avoid personal attacks & shallow dismissals (per the discussion guidelines). The guidelines say as conversations go on, they should get more interesting. Which is why I asked you to point out unsupported claims so you could illustrate why (and give more information, and add context and light). Instead you tellingly refused to point anything out, resorted to incorrect hyperbole and personal attacks. I feel that was about half of what you wrote in the end. I don't want to close on that. I did find 50% of what you had to say to be informative and genuinely interesting and did cure me of some ignorance (and i feel this would have been a very good convo had we been able to stick to that.)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]