Sorry to reply to you, with this, but my comment to Ugh. was dismissed, so I’m reposting it here:

That you are done with a topic does not free you from the criticisms of your contributions, poor as they were, to said topic. Feel free to dismiss as you will, but why should I give a fuck that you said “Nevermind, guys, I’m quitting without reconciling the disagreement.”?

No, ne’s using an analogy to point out the invalidity of your argument. You’re trying to say that a statement which calls “most” of the criticism sexist is only relevant to those criticisms that ARE sexist and that any critics that aren’t sexist or making sexist critiques shouldn’t be irritated by that. Nyr point is…

A non-neutral internet will allow data to be prioritized at the sole discretion of ISPs, for whatever reasons they so choose. It gives ISPs unilateral control over the content.

Tsk! That’s a shame. I’m sure it’s good, but I do love the taste of a fresh, soft pretzel. Even lateral differences are a disappointment.

Um, hold the fucking phone, and nevermind the drink; What is this delicious-looking pretzel thingy?

If we assume that the word choice is imperative to the discussion - which we really should, because the topic started as whether or not “guys” is appropriate, not whether to use autocorrect to police ourselves - then we must validate whether changing one word for the other is appropriate. I didn’t miss that point, I…

This is stretching.

My reply to Leonard Johnson got dismissed, so I’m reposting it here:

Aww, come on! I had more faith in you, than that. I even pulled you out of the greys, because I believed in you! I believed that you could be a reasonable person.

Hey, you’re on the right track! You’ve got the sexism part down, so that’s good. But you don’t quite seem to be understanding implications or the causal properties of thought.

So then...there’s nothing wrong with the blockchain.

I mean...yes you can? That’s literally the design behind Ripple and SCP and a whole handful of other blockchain technologies that were specifically intended to handle transactions in fractions of a second, rather than minutes.

Yeah, but now you’re talking about problems with Bitcoin, not the blockchain. It seems like you know enough to know the problems with proof of work which, I assume, means that you know of the other verification methods.

Possibly stupid question here, and only tangentially related to the topic, but maybe someone can clear this up for me:

Regarding #2:

Just like with any other ledger, the only thing that matters is the recent transactions.

Never mind the commenters in this thread who, apparently, have no idea what misogyny is, or how to recognize it. You’re on point.

Heads-up: It is a standard writing practice to start a quote off with a quotation mark, and then leave it off at the end of a paragraph when the next paragraph continues the quote. Bizarrely, you ALSO put a beginning quote on the following paragraph.

I’m not ashamed to admit that what I’m doing can be considered trolling, by many. A trolling of trolling, if you like. Meeting bad arguments head on with the reasonable logic that highlights why the arguments are bad.