Laird
Member
Before responding to what FCP did say, let's take a look at what s/he didn't say. I challenged him/her:
So, how did FCP respond to this particular challenge? Did s/he iterate over each link Rome and I have supposedly provided, as well as each supposedly contrary link, carefully explaining in each case how the contrary link "strongly shows otherwise"? Did s/he offer even any reason to believe s/he even knew what s/he was talking about in the first place? What exactly was his/her response to this challenge to his/her assertion that "those few links [which Rome and I have provided] have been contested with other links, which more strongly show otherwise"?
Silence.
That's right. S/he refuses to even back up his/her own words. Yet every time anyone else says anything remotely factual, his/her go-to is "Evidence, please".
In fact, you did not respond to my edit. You responded to Rome's criticism of the edit that replaced it. The only person who did respond was "Castaigne", who claimed that the edit was unacceptable because I am a "promoter" of Rome. So, firstly we have the genetic fallacy, and, secondly, we have a direct contradiction of your implicit claim that I was welcome to edit. But did you say anything? Maybe a "Oh, hey, Castaigne, you know, that's not quite fair - after all, I invited Laird to edit in the first place"? Nope. Again, silence from you.
"Castaigne" also asked for "independent verification" of the "claims" made in my edit and its justification. I pointed out that all necessary verification can be found in the video of the talk and the direct quotes I provided from it. I further asked which "claims" in particular s/he contested. So, what compelling response did you and others come up with?
More silence.
Evidence please. (How does it feel, dude?). In fact, it added substance: it explained the entire point of the Google Consciousness meme: as "a snarky rebuttal" to Daniel Dennett, and it explained that (and why) it wasn't intended seriously.
Yes, links that were on the level of tabloid journalism gossip.
"Ooo, did you see what that Rome Viharo did?"
"No! Oh gosh, what did he do *this* time?"
"You're not going to believe this, he's really done it now!"
"Oh, go on then, tell me!"
"Well, you know that talk he did?"
"Yes, yes, I know it, the one where he said that Google is conscious - I mean, how ridiculous. Now, what's he done?"
"Would you believe that he actually went to a forum and promoted it?"
"NO! Oh, he DIDN'T, did he?"
"I kid you not, that's exactly what he did!"
"Oh, that man! He'll be the death of us".
Clearly not.
Yes, and I've been waiting for a response for days now.
Whitewashing, dude...
OK, this is a kicker quote. It's pretty amusing. Earlier in this thread you admitted that you haven't researched psi at all, and that you defer to other people's judgement of it. Yet here you come out and definitively declare it as "pseudoscience". So, you haven't researched it, and admit that you don't know enough to have an opinion, yet quite happily advance one (categorically) anyway. Then you have the nerve to question why posters on this forum refer to you and others on RW as closeminded!
Seriously, you could make this stuff up, but it doesn't seem to be fiction this time (or is it? Is this a creative trolling campaign? If so: congrats, dude, you really know how to get a rise out of people).
Give me a reason to expect I'll be listened to, and that what I say will be acted on - and not just in a "make the most minor adjustments necessary whilst continuing to spin Rome in the worst possible light" way, but in a meaningful, substantive way. I mean it. Give me a real, solid, honest-to-God reason. Then I'll consider it.
Laird said:See, you're big on terse, dismissive declarations, but utterly bankrupt when it comes to backing them up. What are these links which "strongly show otherwise"? What was attempted to be shown and how was it shown "otherwise", and why should we believe you? See, it's easy to sling around pat assertions, but can you back them up?
So, how did FCP respond to this particular challenge? Did s/he iterate over each link Rome and I have supposedly provided, as well as each supposedly contrary link, carefully explaining in each case how the contrary link "strongly shows otherwise"? Did s/he offer even any reason to believe s/he even knew what s/he was talking about in the first place? What exactly was his/her response to this challenge to his/her assertion that "those few links [which Rome and I have provided] have been contested with other links, which more strongly show otherwise"?
Silence.
That's right. S/he refuses to even back up his/her own words. Yet every time anyone else says anything remotely factual, his/her go-to is "Evidence, please".
I've responded to every single post on the article talkpage, and either added the change or questioned its merits.
In fact, you did not respond to my edit. You responded to Rome's criticism of the edit that replaced it. The only person who did respond was "Castaigne", who claimed that the edit was unacceptable because I am a "promoter" of Rome. So, firstly we have the genetic fallacy, and, secondly, we have a direct contradiction of your implicit claim that I was welcome to edit. But did you say anything? Maybe a "Oh, hey, Castaigne, you know, that's not quite fair - after all, I invited Laird to edit in the first place"? Nope. Again, silence from you.
"Castaigne" also asked for "independent verification" of the "claims" made in my edit and its justification. I pointed out that all necessary verification can be found in the video of the talk and the direct quotes I provided from it. I further asked which "claims" in particular s/he contested. So, what compelling response did you and others come up with?
More silence.
Your proposed edit [1], in particular, was lacking in substance
Evidence please. (How does it feel, dude?). In fact, it added substance: it explained the entire point of the Google Consciousness meme: as "a snarky rebuttal" to Daniel Dennett, and it explained that (and why) it wasn't intended seriously.
it, in fact, removed hyperlinks.
Yes, links that were on the level of tabloid journalism gossip.
"Ooo, did you see what that Rome Viharo did?"
"No! Oh gosh, what did he do *this* time?"
"You're not going to believe this, he's really done it now!"
"Oh, go on then, tell me!"
"Well, you know that talk he did?"
"Yes, yes, I know it, the one where he said that Google is conscious - I mean, how ridiculous. Now, what's he done?"
"Would you believe that he actually went to a forum and promoted it?"
"NO! Oh, he DIDN'T, did he?"
"I kid you not, that's exactly what he did!"
"Oh, that man! He'll be the death of us".
I've already put up.
Clearly not.
Have you?
Yes, and I've been waiting for a response for days now.
Harassment? RW has an article that documents Mr. Viharo's actions.
Whitewashing, dude...
Some of said actions have unfortunately aided pseudoscience.
OK, this is a kicker quote. It's pretty amusing. Earlier in this thread you admitted that you haven't researched psi at all, and that you defer to other people's judgement of it. Yet here you come out and definitively declare it as "pseudoscience". So, you haven't researched it, and admit that you don't know enough to have an opinion, yet quite happily advance one (categorically) anyway. Then you have the nerve to question why posters on this forum refer to you and others on RW as closeminded!
Seriously, you could make this stuff up, but it doesn't seem to be fiction this time (or is it? Is this a creative trolling campaign? If so: congrats, dude, you really know how to get a rise out of people).
Your block is two days gone; feel free to tell RW why the article is wrong.
Give me a reason to expect I'll be listened to, and that what I say will be acted on - and not just in a "make the most minor adjustments necessary whilst continuing to spin Rome in the worst possible light" way, but in a meaningful, substantive way. I mean it. Give me a real, solid, honest-to-God reason. Then I'll consider it.