3 ms·

Frankly, I personally have absolutely no intention to answer your data. I don't have the expertise, nor the patience to gain it. But I can still take issue wit

Frankly, I personally have absolutely no intention to answer your data. I don't have the expertise, nor the patience to gain it. But I can still take issue with your manner. Not because it offends me (it doesn't), not because of some imaginary "popularity contest" -- but because your arrogant tone, and your visible scorn of those who disagree with you, is going to achieve nothing but damage the quality of debate. You can't complain about getting naught but emotive responses when your posts seem structured to provoke exactly that. State your claims, show your data, that's great. If you want people to answer your case, stop there -- dressing it up in antagonism only gives respondents the option of answering your attitude instead of your argument. Don't give them that chance if you don't want them to take it. If they get distracted by emotion anyway, then, well, at least you tried.

robomartin 14y ago
I think you are trying to read more into my post that I actually say. Scorn means contempt. I don't have contempt for anyone on HN. How could I? Most are probably far smarter than I am. What I could have contempt for is the act of arguing a matter from an ideological or emotional perspective while choosing to ignore the data and the facts. Note that I didn't say that I have contempt for the people who do this but for the "act" or process itself. BTW, it's not "my" data, it's the FBI's and the US Department of Justice, both far more reputable than I am in these matters. I have yet to see one post truly address the facts as reflected by the data.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  "I didn't say that I have contempt for the people who do this but for the "act" or process itself." So what? Showing contempt for your opposition's behaviour is hardly going to be any more conducive to reasoned debate than showing contempt for them as individuals. The difference would be scarcely noticeable to your readers. Either way, a scornful tone does not foster the impression that you're interested in having a reasonable discussion, and no amount of protestation to the contrary ("address the facts!", "critique the data!", etc) will change that. Why bother even trying to offer a high-quality counterargument to someone who thinks you're a "sheep"? My point remains: If you want people to "address the facts as reflected by the data", then, yes, present the facts, as you believe them to be, and present the best data you can find to support your position -- you've got those parts down -- but stop there, so those replying can only address what you want addressed. Leave nothing else for them to reply to. In particular, keep your own emotions out of it if you want others to do the same.

robomartin 14y ago

I think you are trying to read more into my post that I actually say. Scorn means contempt. I don't have contempt for anyone on HN. How could I? Most are probably far smarter than I am. What I could have contempt for is the act of arguing a matter from an ideological or emotional perspective while choosing to ignore the data and the facts. Note that I didn't say that I have contempt for the people who do this but for the "act" or process itself. BTW, it's not "my" data, it's the FBI's and the US Department of Justice, both far more reputable than I am in these matters. I have yet to see one post truly address the facts as reflected by the data.

EvilTerran 14y ago
"I didn't say that I have contempt for the people who do this but for the "act" or process itself." So what? Showing contempt for your opposition's behaviour is hardly going to be any more conducive to reasoned debate than showing contempt for them as individuals. The difference would be scarcely noticeable to your readers. Either way, a scornful tone does not foster the impression that you're interested in having a reasonable discussion, and no amount of protestation to the contrary ("address the facts!", "critique the data!", etc) will change that. Why bother even trying to offer a high-quality counterargument to someone who thinks you're a "sheep"? My point remains: If you want people to "address the facts as reflected by the data", then, yes, present the facts, as you believe them to be, and present the best data you can find to support your position -- you've got those parts down -- but stop there, so those replying can only address what you want addressed. Leave nothing else for them to reply to. In particular, keep your own emotions out of it if you want others to do the same.