Sorry for the belated reply, I did not read your comment until just 5 minutes ago. I avoided it, knowing it would be toxic and I had more important things to do. But now I have some free time, so let's deal with you, sir.
"We"? You only speak for you, right? You cannot assume consensus in unknown random internet others, or else you also must presume consensus with my ideas, too?
The idea of "useless" is of course an imposition. And abusive. I clearly find it useful, so to claim useless is to devalue my perspective. Do you not see that? Or you think it justified? Neither is acceptable if you aim, as you say, for 'politeness'. Nor even for good sense.
So, I think you don't aim to be polite in fact, but merely pretend to be so. Hahaha! :)
What about the content as arguments? There is none from you because you do not acknowledge the other perspectives. So it all comes down, necessarily, to you as people.
But you can't be deep without being balanced, because then you can only be narrow minded. Which you are succeeding at, but you think that's a victory. When it's not: balance is required for real depth, because in appreciation the the breadth, you depth is able to resonate, through linking with what else is real. Otherwise it is, necessarily, unhinged. As your seems to be, sorry to say! Hahahaha :)
Your pretense at ethics around use of AI tools is belied by your "low ethics" attitude toward commentary. How are we to find that convincing, if you are not a moral actor in the first?
Flagged only requires a few people. If you require the consolation of the chorus of voices to lift your own, I understand. But that undercuts your message of depth, does it not, sir? :)
> I'm sorry if I made you think this, but let me assure you this is not the case.
You know you can only be sorry for your own choices/actions, right? Not for whatever you assume someone else feels, yes? You cannot "make" me feel a certain way. My feelings are my responsibility, not yours. So, a better way that respects the boundaries of individuals (I understand if you have trouble with that, but take heed, and learn!) is to say, "I'm sorry for <insert your action>" if you do feel you have something to be sorry for.
Overall your comment comes across just about exactly as I thought it would, given your previous ones. For humility, well, perhaps you have a thing or two to learn, indeed. But even that may be too much to ask of you. I suggest, instead, first you take a course in empathy, and then in self-awareness. Then perhaps you'll be equipped to appreciate your humility.
Good luck, sir. And have a pleasant week! Hahaha! :)
Your comment brought me the entertainment I needed at this minute. I am grateful. So here's my gift to you, youngin: But, I think you're just playing at this role of provocateur--you can do much better--but you haven't figured it out yet (and you know it), and that's your weakness.
So, work out what you really want to do, and then talk to others of 'standards'. Hahahahahahaha! :)
"We"? You only speak for you, right? You cannot assume consensus in unknown random internet others, or else you also must presume consensus with my ideas, too?
The idea of "useless" is of course an imposition. And abusive. I clearly find it useful, so to claim useless is to devalue my perspective. Do you not see that? Or you think it justified? Neither is acceptable if you aim, as you say, for 'politeness'. Nor even for good sense.
So, I think you don't aim to be polite in fact, but merely pretend to be so. Hahaha! :)
What about the content as arguments? There is none from you because you do not acknowledge the other perspectives. So it all comes down, necessarily, to you as people.
But you can't be deep without being balanced, because then you can only be narrow minded. Which you are succeeding at, but you think that's a victory. When it's not: balance is required for real depth, because in appreciation the the breadth, you depth is able to resonate, through linking with what else is real. Otherwise it is, necessarily, unhinged. As your seems to be, sorry to say! Hahahaha :)
Your pretense at ethics around use of AI tools is belied by your "low ethics" attitude toward commentary. How are we to find that convincing, if you are not a moral actor in the first?
Flagged only requires a few people. If you require the consolation of the chorus of voices to lift your own, I understand. But that undercuts your message of depth, does it not, sir? :)
> I'm sorry if I made you think this, but let me assure you this is not the case.
You know you can only be sorry for your own choices/actions, right? Not for whatever you assume someone else feels, yes? You cannot "make" me feel a certain way. My feelings are my responsibility, not yours. So, a better way that respects the boundaries of individuals (I understand if you have trouble with that, but take heed, and learn!) is to say, "I'm sorry for <insert your action>" if you do feel you have something to be sorry for.
Overall your comment comes across just about exactly as I thought it would, given your previous ones. For humility, well, perhaps you have a thing or two to learn, indeed. But even that may be too much to ask of you. I suggest, instead, first you take a course in empathy, and then in self-awareness. Then perhaps you'll be equipped to appreciate your humility.
Good luck, sir. And have a pleasant week! Hahaha! :)
Your comment brought me the entertainment I needed at this minute. I am grateful. So here's my gift to you, youngin: But, I think you're just playing at this role of provocateur--you can do much better--but you haven't figured it out yet (and you know it), and that's your weakness.
So, work out what you really want to do, and then talk to others of 'standards'. Hahahahahahaha! :)