5 ms·

"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 re

• 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.)
• seadan83 2y ago
  > "Every claim?" Yep I was curious about this and triple checked. Some claims had citations. Therefore at least some were supported. I wrote: > Somewhat helping a couple hundred people out of a million plus, is not quite the "nice" gesture. I understand a bit more the disconnect now. I did not write carefully that I meant that as a hypothetical, in the context of an "at worst." As a claim, I would agree it is unsupported. And I agree it can reasonably read that way. I can see how that would bias the reading of the rest of the content. > that dude that bought 50 StarLinks on his own credit card and hauled them out to those in need Is that a real example? I'm willing to take your word for it. I don't read twitter nor reddit. Those types of anecdotes are not reported on from the sources I read. Which is to say, you genuinely have some info I don't have. No logical traps. I am learning more about the scale and utility of starlink. Anecdotes do not make data, at the same time I appreciate the info. I do wish you could unbias the conversation, make it about ideas and data, and not make this personal.