I suppose my point was to challenge your signal-sensing apparatus. The problem of putting signal v. noise on a pedestal is that we take for granted what the shape of good signals looks like.
Again, this would be a valid criticism if I had simply said:
'I expect to be downvoted.'
Or if I were trying to game the system or otherwise accumulate points. As odd as it is to imagine though, that's not actually my point. My point, to be direct, is that:
I expect to be downvoted as the signal that I would indicate is not exactly on the same wavelength as most -- and so you'll probably interpret it as noise.
Though I don't mean to be argumentative (esp. by repeating myself). But I mean you raise a good point. However, it's not like I just signed up for HN yesterday. I've been reading this for a year or so, and I recognize what will be downvoted. Maybe I'm doing it on purpose though? Maybe I want you to downvote me and then think about it? What I often get after -- and am always downvoted for -- is that there are large differences within this category of 'trolling', which we assume everyone who isn't being immediately, objectively informative is a part of. There are unhelpful trolls, for sure. But there are also helpful trolls. You could even go so far as to say: people like Socrates -- who arguably contribute more to the difficult, valuable, formative stages of things like science than anyone else. I'm just trying to remind people to not get too complacent about what a good signal looks like.
PS: Your comment can easily be read as: to be argumentative I'm doing /this/ on purpose. I believe there are helpful trolls /and I am trying to be one./ It's sitting at the noise floor, so why spend the time looking for a deeper meaning?
Note: The above actually said vary little wasted a lot of words and is intended as an example of what no to do while using vaguely insulting weasel words for the fun of it (can easily be read as etc).
