If so, it was off topic. John Carmack's post was about VR interfaces, and I interpreted the parent comment in that context. In any case, I would contest that bypassing the limitations of vision, specifically, represents a significant part of the reason for Dynamicland.
If you "would contest" that, it's because you still haven't read the essay that was linked in the putatively off-topic comment you were "responding" to, after eight years. And, yeah, you could try to redefine "VR" and even "3D interfaces" (the actual topic) as being strictly limited to "binocular video responding to a head tracker", but even "VR" researchers have been researching haptic and kinesthetic feedback from a zillion angles for a lot more than eight years, so I don't think it's off-topic at all.
