> Yes, that is what you should have led with. What's the question?
No question to you. What I shared was personal and irrelevant. It's a bit snotty to turn a dead man into a football because you're upset my views on crypto.
No. You have a very persistent, easily fixable habit of being confidently wrong. I'm suggesting a way to fight that habit and make your comments useful, even for those cases where you turn out to be wrong. You can benefit from that advice, or you can double down. I know what the responsible option is.
> even for those cases where you turn out to be wrong
I’m not going to litigate a dead man’s personal life on a forum. But I’m not totally sold on that article. There are contemporaneous public quotes, too, where Bob identified as straight while acknowledging sleeping with men. It’s not an important issue, so I’m not going to fight it. But I will defend saying it, as well as my right to not say how I know.
On the crypto thread, I maintain that counterparty risk for e.g. LedgerX is significant in the event Bitcoin zeroes out. You disagree. So do a lot of people confidently placing leveraged bets there. This will almost certainly require court intervention, so it will be interesting to see.
Nevertheless, it was an interesting discussion from which I learned. I also appreciate this feedback, even though I disagree on speaking unequivocally or being required to breach one’s privacy to make a low-key point.
In the spirit of the HN guidelines, let's keep the crypto talk on the crypto thread.[1]
>But I will defend saying it, as well as my right to not say how I know.
Maybe I wasn't clear -- I just meant that you should have led with the stuff you were already comfortable saying, i.e. this part[2]:
>>>I never heard him use that label, and remember him pushing back on it,
and I asked that because it allows others to better gauge the credibility of the belief, rather than give the false impression that it's uncontroversial, widely accepted knowledge.
Heck, even saying that it was based on personal knowledge that you couldn't elaborate on would have been better.
You also just now gave other evidence that wasn't private, and would have also been helpful to know:
>There are contemporaneous public quotes, too, where Bob identified as straight while acknowledging sleeping with men.
None of that requires to you divulge anything private, but it does save you from being confidently wrong, and does provide useful context to the discussion.
I read through these threads, and I think if you're going to direct such pointed criticism to JumpCrisscross, you should reflect on your own comments as well - you repeatedly berate them for being incurious and confidently wrong, but I think you're largely misreading their tone and failing to ask for clarification on their views.
The guidelines you've referenced prescribe editing out swipes, but you make them repeatedly. Maybe you could transform those swipes into questions in the future. Eg, instead of saying, "yet again you're confidently wrong," you could say, "are you aware that FTX owned LedgerX and the creditors were unable to access client funds?"
No question to you. What I shared was personal and irrelevant. It's a bit snotty to turn a dead man into a football because you're upset my views on crypto.