"This is interesting and contradicts a bit of "disrupt" meme:"
If I was trying to rebut his point I would have stated that I thought he was wrong "and here is why" which is not what I did, did I?
With medical and legal advice by the way, it's highly likely that you if you talk to 10 professionals, (as the saying goes) you might very well get 10 different opinions.
"I'd say the prior odds of pg contradicting himself "
I didn't say PG contradicted himself at all. I said what he was saying contradicts the "disrupt" meme (if you want to call it that).
"Rather than point out the apparent contradiction and go all j'accuse on the author"
How does what I said in any way rise to the level of this:
Fair enough. I ask you forgive me for my incorrect interpretation. Here's what you wrote:
>"You can't trust your intuitions. I'm going to give you a set of rules here that will get you through this process if anything will. At certain moments you'll be tempted to ignore them. So rule number zero is: these rules exist for a reason. You wouldn't need a rule to keep you going in one direction if there weren't powerful forces pushing you in another."
> What this seems to be saying (to young people) is "it's ok to ignore what other older more experienced people say (or what established practices are) and try to disrupt in those situations because the guidelines and experience they have is bogus but I am telling you that my rules are right so just trust me".
In particular, I took the "this" in "What this seems to be saying" to mean preceding paragraph you quoted from pg's essay and the quote following it to be a restatement of an argument pg was making in this essay or elsewhere. Since pg's essay didn't talk about the "disruption meme", include the words "disruption" or "meme", or have anything to do with advice outside a fundraising context, I had assumed you were referencing previous essays.
So, either the "this" in "What this seems to be saying" is referencing something else or you're responding to a position nobody in this conversation, including pg, has taken. Wanting to be charitable, I assumed you misread the essay or over-generalized its argument.
"This is interesting and contradicts a bit of "disrupt" meme:"
If I was trying to rebut his point I would have stated that I thought he was wrong "and here is why" which is not what I did, did I?
With medical and legal advice by the way, it's highly likely that you if you talk to 10 professionals, (as the saying goes) you might very well get 10 different opinions.
"I'd say the prior odds of pg contradicting himself "
I didn't say PG contradicted himself at all. I said what he was saying contradicts the "disrupt" meme (if you want to call it that).
"Rather than point out the apparent contradiction and go all j'accuse on the author"
How does what I said in any way rise to the level of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%27accuse