> I don’t see the point [of trying to have a conversation] when you’ve already admitted that you do not feel inclined to provide any evidence...
I would feel badly about that if you showed any interest in adhering to the higher standard you espouse, or indeed to any standard: you're an "avid user" now, but "I saw plenty of content from Tumblr in 2014 despite not actively using it," you said upthread just a little while ago.
Unless we mean you to say you were "avid" but only on 4chan, I'm not sure how this is intended to be taken, but that doesn't actually matter because I'm speaking of what I have observed among a cohort in which you have, I repeat, affirmatively disclaimed membership, rendering your observations of your own behavior moot in this context.
It's no fun bullshitting when only one party involved realizes that's what they're doing.
> you're an "avid user" now, but "I saw plenty of content from Tumblr in 2014 despite not actively using it," you said upthread just a little while ago.
I was an avid user of 4chan, not Tumblr.
> I'm speaking of what I have observed among a cohort in which you have, I repeat, affirmatively disclaimed membership, rendering your observations of your own behavior moot in this context.
You wrote:
>in that the deepest and most shameful secret of both websites' most avid users is that they have always been both websites' most avid users.
The plain reading of this claim is that the power users of both websites used both websites. I have no reason to think that this is true, and you haven’t made any argument as to why you think it is true. The way you are reading what you have written would make your claim tautological: i.e. “The users who used both websites used both websites.”
The argument hinges on what you mean by "avid," which you have opted not to define. There's nothing concrete here for me to address.
This is the kind of thing I mean when I say we're both bullshitting and you don't realize it. I haven't defined the word in my own usage either, nor indeed intended anything more by it than to denote those passionately enough interested not only to participate in the culture but to observe it as they did so, and who went different places to inhabit different sides of themselves the way people have always done, especially while young with identity still malleable, for as long as there've been people.
That vagueness is fine for my argument, which after all is just that I've seen what I've seen and it's interesting to talk about that. Yours is "no you didn't and we have to fight about it," and I admit that is getting me a little curious as to why all this would mean so much to you over a stranger about whose opinion of you you've no obvious cause to care. You're making a federal case of a colloquial statement. Why?
> The argument hinges on what you mean by "avid," which you have opted not to define.
Tiresome.
> which after all is just that I've seen what I've seen and it's interesting to talk about that.
My argument is just that I’ve seen what I’ve seen and it contradicts what you’ve seen.
Well, at least we can agree we're both bullshitting, then. You won't, but we could. Other outcomes were possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43706093
I’ve stated my argument plainly. You are being evasive because your argument is unconvincing. Review the site guidelines; you are violating several of them.
Flag my comments, then. Or does this throwaway of yours lack sufficient karma as yet for that? I forget, but I think probably.
Mr. Gackle has had words with me before when I have caused the need; if he or his new offsider whose name I forget feels the same need now, no doubt they will again so remonstrate. In the meantime you, in seeking to speak from their cathedra, fail to impress.
Take your meds.
Oh, honey, that's sweet of you and I appreciate it, but it's been many years since I had trouble keeping track of such things. Seven sharp this morning, just like every other day.