adefinitemaybe

If you're being a troll: save yourself some trouble and go away. Eliezer's been irritable lately and is apt to boot you.

If I were a troll, would going away somehow be more beneficial to me than being booted? I mean, does this Eliezer actually physically kick suspected trolls? Or would the end result be the exact same? And if I were a troll, do you suppose saving myself some trouble would be my overriding concern?

If you're actually, sincerely trying to have a fun exchange about whether you might be immortal (quantum or otherwise):

1) The little numbers on your comments are, in fact, important and should interest you. They indicate how you're being

No, I have no evidence for your mortality. Although it's possible that I could someday have such evidence (based on the generally-accepted definition of mortality), I could never be in a position to present YOU with any.

My underlying interest in this theme lies in the direction of why we blindly accept our own mortality on such little individually-beheld evidence. Is it possible that, as with increasing average human lifespan, dying has more to do with belief about dying than with any physiological limitations? Accidents and murder, etc., apart, could we believe ourselves to 200 years old, if we could shake off the ingrained belief in the inevitability of death? Could avoidance of... (read more)

I have changed my opinion of you, and I think that Less Wrong is not suitable for you.

Thank you. I don't care what you think about my suitability here, and I suspect your motives for so advising me to be based in unjustified ill-will. Please restrict your subsequent responses to me to the topic in hand.

If you look back over your exchange, several of us have replied in good faith to clarify your assertion and expand upon the areas of disagreement. You have not shown the least interest in returning the favor.

I made a prediction. If you wish to challenge that prediction, the onus is upon you to present me with evidence... (read more)

I shall assume that you are human (which I think is virtually certain) and speaking in good faith (which I shall simply assume for the sake of the conversation).<

1. Why wouldn't you just take it as read that I'm speaking in good faith? You've used a lot of words in attempting to paint me as a country bumpkin, not fit to tie your intellectual sandals. That you preface all that with a comment about having to overtly assume my good faith makes me think you're not that sure about the bumpkin thing.

2. You can't just assume I'm human. If that were valid, we could all just assume whatever we wanted here, and claim we

If we are all to just read the articles, what's the point of having a discussion forum? If Unknowns wants to use the content of that article to make his argument, then he should do so, and make the argument in his own words. It is sheer laziness (and verging on the plagiaristic) to just point to articles and say "My argument is in there somewhere. Please respond as soon as you identify it. Of course, I'll get all bent out of shape if you misinterpret what I meant to say, although I'm prepared to accept some associated praise for having ALSO thought that which the article's author has taken the time... (read more)

I made a prediction. People challenged me on that...weakly. I responded to them, rationally and in good faith. People are voting me down because I issued a challenge they can't meet; because I hit them with a conundrum that they can't solve. I've dented pride. And, because I'm new, the humiliation they irrationally feel is doubled. How can I be trolling when all I've done is respond, amicably and on-topic, to posters' comments? Isn't it true that all the hostility is coming from their side?

"New Year's prediction: adefinitemaybe will be banned from Less Wrong. Sixty-five percent."

Why, what rule have I broken? Is there a rule about riding roughshod over wannabe thinkers intellectual... (read more)