I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly did not bring up Alan Watts again; you did. It also takes a lot of words to convey my thoughts accurately to someone who seems bent on misunderstanding them.

▲

throwanem a day ago | parent [-]

I restated them yesterday in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44757634, assuming at the time that if you found any error there you would say so. Here's another chance to explain where I've actually failed to grasp your thesis, rather than that I'm pointing out you have overdressed a triviality with pretentious overcomplication.

But it's less interesting to me that you brought up Alan Watts seven years ago than that you did so again yesterday. What do you need from him? Why bring him up if you don't want to talk about him? Or is it that no one is allowed to have an opinion that contradicts yours, including when that involves looking askance at needless reference to dead prophets?

▲

teddyh a day ago | parent [-]

> you have overdressed a triviality with pretentious overcomplication.

Well, possibly. What is interesting and subtle to some is obvious and clichéd to others. Much like how technology is mysterious and ineffable to some, but obvious and plain to others.

> But it's less interesting to me that you brought up Alan Watts seven years ago than that you did so again yesterday. What do you need from him? Why bring him up if you don't want to talk about him?

Now you’re being delusory. You brough up Alan Watts again, after I quoted him seven years ago. I simply responded to you.

> Or is it that no one is allowed to have an opinion that contradicts yours, including when that involves looking askance at needless reference to dead prophets?

I think that, outside purely literary criticism, criticizing a “needless” reference is useless unless the reference itself is incorrect in a way which invalidates the point which the reference is meant to illuminate.

	▲	throwanem 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You [brought] up Alan Watts again I just checked again, and it does look like you posted [1] the relevant links. Are you seeing something different? My experience has been that people who use apps or scripts which purport to "improve" on HN's interface do sometimes run into such bugs. I bring it up because I feel like if we're not working from similar sets of facts, that would be a reasonable explanation for what otherwise is seeming very much like you doing everything you possibly can to avoid acknowledging I called bullshit, on the naked appeal to authority to which you resorted, in order to try to lend your words a weight you lack the ability to give them yourself. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44753964