There's this little thing called prior history. This video may be new but the opinions espoused by Sanger are not. SirensOfTitan mentions as much in his comment. You only need to watch the first few seconds to realize his opinion hasn't changed. Sanger complains about trolls on the site but Sanger himself is a bit of a troll as he once reported the wiki commons org to the FBI for hosting child porn, it turned out to be depictions of child abuse but not actually porn. Many accused him of doing this simply because his own wikipedia alternatives were failing at the time.
I'm saying that SirensOfTitan's comment adds nothing that isn't already present in the linked video (and he freely admits that he didn't watch it) and therefore really serves no purpose (other than to boast, "I know things about this topic already _and_ I don't even need to watch the video".)
Your defense of SirensOfTitan's comment's supposed utility is to make your own tangential point which does nothing to argue that the original comment is valuable.
So I maintain: What was the point of SiresOfTitan's comment?
stillbourne|4 years ago
vcavallo|4 years ago
I'm saying that SirensOfTitan's comment adds nothing that isn't already present in the linked video (and he freely admits that he didn't watch it) and therefore really serves no purpose (other than to boast, "I know things about this topic already _and_ I don't even need to watch the video".)
Your defense of SirensOfTitan's comment's supposed utility is to make your own tangential point which does nothing to argue that the original comment is valuable.
So I maintain: What was the point of SiresOfTitan's comment?