On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Ted Lemon
<ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Noel Chiappa
<jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
and 'how old are you' (as a quick
example off the top of my head, not necessarily the greyest I could come
up
with if I spent more time thinking about it) is somewhere in the middle..
Actually, if you think a bit more about this you might conclude that it's
not in the middle at all. It's almost always pejorative, whether the
implied age is young or old.
Well one of the points I am about to make in my next podcast on BitCoin is
that the reason BitCoiners with technical chops tend to have a median age
of about 27 is that the older generation of crypto types have seen it all
before in Gold Age, eGold, Liberty Reserve etc.
But in that case it is making a point to a group that is running round
making the claim that their scheme is the future of finance because it is
new. So pointing out that it is e-Gold with 'blockchain' for 'bearer' is
rather relevant.
As Barry points out in his post, it all depends on context. The problem
here was that the poster raised a reasonable point and the first response
was rude and exclusionary and not backed up by any substance. In the right
circumstances 'well we tried that and it failed in Kobe' might be a
relevant argument. But 'who the hell are you to ask' is not a reasonable
response to an initial suggestion made in a reasonable manner.
There are cases where rudeness is justified and necessary. When a group is
running round burning $20 million worth of electricity a month and mouthing
off about how everyone who doesn't believe in their scheme is an idiot,
then its time to take the gloves off. Rude or not, when $350 million of a
total float of $7 billion is alleged to be missing due to one bank that
might have failed, anyone who does not understand the jig is up is going to
be calling themselves things far worse than stupid in a short time.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/