Diff of Wrong at c149635

@@ -4,19 +4,19 @@ Due to technical limitations, this page is not currently aware of the particular
 
-* The claim you just made is contradicted by decades of research which you ignored because it does not feel good.
-* Your statement is an incoherent jumble of vaguely associated technical terms which does not actually parse into a claim.
-* Your reasoning is based on a roughly accurate intuition or approximation which doesn't generalize to the edge case you just used it in.
-* The claim you just made is inconsistent with my reading of an obscure paper I happened to see.
-* Your argument could only be generated by someone with deep and abiding misunderstandings of physics, maths, reality, etc.
-* Your argument only works by word association and equivocation.
-* If the claim you made were true, you could easily print money, and you haven't.
-* You made a minor grammar error and are thus scheduled for obliteration.
-* Your argument relates poorly defined terms in a way which makes no concrete predictions.
-* [[gwern]] once offhandedly claimed the opposite.
-* Your answer is right, but only because your mistakes didn't fail to cancel out.
-* Your values are evidently antithetical to my own and you will need to be paperclipped in time.
-* The claim you just made is contradicted by thinking about it for five seconds and basic domain knowledge.
-* You uncritically repeated a piece of technical marketing which makes impossible or wildly implausible claims.
-* You are trying to solve the wrong problem using the wrong methods based on a wrong model of the world derived from poor thinking and unfortunately all of your mistakes have failed to cancel out.
-* A brief Fermi estimate shows that your answer is most likely off by several orders of magnitude.
-* The evidence for your claim is based on problematic evaluations, standards or methods of measurement and you have not sufficiently justified them.
-* Most arguments are wrong. You made an argument. Therefore, it's probably wrong.
\ No newline at end of file
+*. The claim you just made is contradicted by decades of research which you ignored because it does not feel good.
+*. Your statement is an incoherent jumble of vaguely associated technical terms which does not actually parse into a claim.
+*. Your reasoning is based on a roughly accurate intuition or approximation which doesn't generalize to the edge case you just used it in.
+*. The claim you just made is inconsistent with my reading of an obscure paper I happened to see.
+*. Your argument could only be generated by someone with deep and abiding misunderstandings of physics, maths, reality, etc.
+*. Your argument only works by word association and equivocation.
+*. If the claim you made were true, you could easily print money, and you haven't.
+*. You made a minor grammar error and are thus scheduled for obliteration.
+*. Your argument relates poorly defined terms in a way which makes no concrete predictions.
+*. [[gwern]] once offhandedly claimed the opposite.
+*. Your answer is right, but only because your mistakes didn't fail to cancel out.
+*. Your values are evidently antithetical to my own and you will need to be paperclipped in time.
+*. The claim you just made is contradicted by thinking about it for five seconds and basic domain knowledge.
+*. You uncritically repeated a piece of technical marketing which makes impossible or wildly implausible claims.
+*. You are trying to solve the wrong problem using the wrong methods based on a wrong model of the world derived from poor thinking and unfortunately all of your mistakes have failed to cancel out.
+*. A brief Fermi estimate shows that your answer is most likely off by several orders of magnitude.
+*. The evidence for your claim is based on problematic evaluations, standards or methods of measurement and you have not sufficiently justified them.
+*. Most arguments are wrong. You made an argument. Therefore, it's probably wrong.
\ No newline at end of file