[TheCleric]

No, I’m reducing your argument to the absurd extreme. We both acknowledge there’s a line to be drawn. I would personally draw it at “the commit is the finest level of curation”, which reasonable people can disagree on.

I just find it absurd of you to argue that “we’re both curators if you think about it” as if that has anything pertinent to add to the conversation.

[burntsushi]

I don't see what's so absurd about it. On the one hand, we have people talking about the "actual" history and "coherence points." And on the other, we have people talking about rewriting history so that it is curated. For example, in the follow-up comment, they said, "So now you've erased the record of your actual process." As if there is one "actual" history and one that isn't. But neither are actual history, and that's what I'm pointing out. Pointing out that both are forms of curation is important because it makes it clear that the difference is a matter of degree, not of something categorical.

But no part of this leads one to conclude that the most possible curation is the best. So your "reducing your argument to the absurd extreme" does not follow. If you're trying to use it as a rhetorical device, then try harder. If you already acknowledge there's a line to be drawn and that both are forms of curation, then I don't see what we're disagreeing with.

> No, I’m reducing your argument to the absurd extreme. We both acknowledge there’s a line to be drawn.

I just explained in my previous comment why my argument doesn't let you draw the extreme conclusion. If you don't want to engage with it directly, then don't bother.

> as if that has anything pertinent to add to the conversation

Pot, meet kettle.