You and the post you reference seem to be saying the same thing
-- Ha ha yes, That is the chase. I was re-phrasing the OP/article argument, which was mis-understood by the parent comment.
The footnote articulated something else altogether, namely a weakness in the argument. It was an more-deeply implied (or imlicit) assumption (so I didn't spell it out), i kept it seperate.
The post you are referring to picked up on this same weakness, but attributed it to me. Which wasn't the end of the world, but his counter-argument was lacking to actually critique the original Post/article.
Hope this helps clarify, the general direction.
Its a tough call on when to clarify a weak or potentially flawed argument, and when to actually argue against it. Here, I thought it added something interesting (namely, recursive logic), which is worth noting and considering.
Without throwing the whole insight out.
If I was smarter, I could probably do that faster, better, stonger. As Arnie says, I'll be Baak. =D
-- Ha ha yes, That is the chase. I was re-phrasing the OP/article argument, which was mis-understood by the parent comment.
The footnote articulated something else altogether, namely a weakness in the argument. It was an more-deeply implied (or imlicit) assumption (so I didn't spell it out), i kept it seperate.
The post you are referring to picked up on this same weakness, but attributed it to me. Which wasn't the end of the world, but his counter-argument was lacking to actually critique the original Post/article.
Hope this helps clarify, the general direction.
Its a tough call on when to clarify a weak or potentially flawed argument, and when to actually argue against it. Here, I thought it added something interesting (namely, recursive logic), which is worth noting and considering.
Without throwing the whole insight out.
If I was smarter, I could probably do that faster, better, stonger. As Arnie says, I'll be Baak. =D