| ▲ | aspenmayer 7 days ago | |
> For what its worth, I also downvoted the other comment yesterday Seems like you just don’t like me. Sounds like motivated reasoning to me. But I thought you meant (my) other comment, not theirs. I think it’s possibly an issue with tone being hard to read in text. In any case, I try to add a correction instead of simply calling out mistakes, but you were right to say whatever you thought. I don’t mean to silence you, but your words had a chilling effect on my speech, so maybe give some reasoning and a correct answer next time instead of just calling someone wrong. Anyone can do that, and they too often do. At least now I know it’s due to that argument being kind of a weak one. I thought they were concerned with the notes especially, which is why I included that reference because it specifically referred to notes. I think there may be other WW2 examples, but I couldn’t lay hand to them at the time. > I appreciate your edit; it is now much more interesting. I appreciate you saying that. I don’t mean to assume you don’t like me, but it seemed that way at the time you said it. Apologies for assuming, and for any offense caused. Edit: For what it’s worth I didn’t downvote you either time, and in fact I upvoted the comment this one is in reply to. | ||
| ▲ | aspenmayer 7 days ago | parent [-] | |
I can’t edit this anymore, but you are correct. > (regular deception, no cryptographic purpose) That is a very good distinction with a difference, and you were right to elucidate this; I only wish you had done it in your original reply to me. In any case, my stream of consciousness post above was in haste, and I think we were both editing at the time. I will try to post better. I wonder if folks are copy posting me? I honestly can’t say. | ||