I had something of a revelation today... Intelligent discussion will probably never happen in this channel
For some reason I associated "crypto" with "smart"
But in reality, the game dev chat whence I came may be my best bet for genuine intellectual discussion paired with fun personalities. People who like to create games after all...
@SomeGuy The written topic of the channel is literally nonsensical. I have concluded that this actually reflects the intended topic of the channel.
I have reviewed past experience, and realized that the common thread with each negative experience has been that the problem stemmed from the fact that knowledge was presented in a somewhat serious way.
I guess in short, I am saying I feel silly for expecting thought provoking engagement from "A special place where bears are ursine overlords, ponies are pyros, buffalos are the NSA and mods are self-censoring..."
What I'm trying to say is: I'm sorry for going against the grain. I did not realize how much discomfort it would cause to challenge objectively incorrect notions with a barrage of supporting arguments and evidence.
I had held the users in such high esteem, that I perceived the disbelief and challenges to support my claims as friendly rigorous conversation. I believed that general level of capability was high enough that some things would be considered trivial, when I now see that they were perceived as arrogant.
I'd suggesting that no-one else in room has any idea what you're on about :) I'd suggest you go with your first instinct in this regard and go to another room where I'm sure they'll be better equipped to understand
Would you mind clarifying your first point, as it seems to logically imply that there is some trouble with understanding the notion I have presented. Assuming that you are not intending to say that the room has poor ability to understand, it would then imply that you are intending to say that my statements are not coherent.
The obvious assumption would be that you are motivated by a personal emotional bias and simply did not read the message with the intention of understanding the ideas it contained. If this is the case though, I'd hope you can see why it would be touchy to ask directly.
That would imply that your conclusion about "no-one else in room" is based on an unsound assumption that all occupants of the room also share such a strong emotional bias that it would render them incapable of consuming any language I provide, simply on the basis that I provided it. (Which itself implies a genetic fallacy)
Mick - my instinct is that you are a mild troll. I have rarely seen folks in here who try to be slightly argumentative as often as you. I do agree that your approach is not the approach that suits this room.
Most here tolerate those who don't quite get it, despite some folks trying really hard to be annoying
I think your best bet is to look at where your preconceptions and assumptions are wrong, and if you can't see why, please remain in a chat room where you feel welcome
It doesn't require t'other Rory to be emotional about it at all, it just requires long experience of our industry
@Mick - Okay, so that is an explanation that fits. It doesn't really make it easier to accept it when your statements look like deliberate (mild) insults
@RоryMcCune - I haven't yet cracked open the Connecticut Moonshine @DavidFreitag gave me. If you are down this way soon, I'll save a nip for you (or more if you want to stay over)
