[alganet]

I'm not offended at all.

Perhaps you have good intentions, but some people don't. Overselling material is typical of charlatans ("you should read more, and go through me to interpret it").

I'm just providing a general skeptical counterpoint to the idea that reading a lot is always good. Many have done that before me (Buddha, Schopenhauer, etc).

It is kind of ironical that I'm name dropping old thinkers here, and providing my interpretation on how to read it. There's no way out of this paradox.

[titanomachian]

“General” skepticism can be a good attitude to have. However, take a look again at what you wrote to me. “Why should I guide my attention using a random substack post?” That was the point we both were making. We both know you shouldn’t take internet posts as advice for life right out of the box, there’s no need to be a cynic about it. I was agreeing with you all along. I even corrected myself about the book thing and tried to make a joke about it, but you doubled down. You didn’t act like a skeptic — you acted like a bully.

[alganet]

Looks like you got offended then. Calling skeptics bullies is very common, I am used to it.

I stated my intentions from the very beginning, I'm not challenging the wisdom, I'm challenging potentially charlatan ways of applying it. If you're not doing that, there's no reason to get offended.

Also, there was no reason to erase your posts. Now people will never know if you were being playful and agreeable or not.

[titanomachian]

Yes, since you were just needlessly acting out your skeptic points with someone agreeing with you, I did get offended. I believe it’s a common thing to feel offended when I engage people in good faith and get attacked. I feel specially offended when I try to make ammends and get attacked again. Anyways, this could have been a great conversation. I hope you’re happy knowing you have been right along. Or have you? Oh, no! But you’re a skeptic! How can we know now? Tun-dun-duuuuun Bye-bye

[alganet]

You're putting up a show for others to read.

So am I. Mine is designed to discourage people from trusting charlatans. I said it from the very beginning, quite honestly.

I don't need to be right, and people don't need to follow my example. They just need to think "wait, why am I reading this thing? why does it feel compelling? am I being tricked?".

Maybe you're not used to skepticism in your life, and you usually get the things you want by putting up a show. That's actually not bad, but I'm not going to apologize for attempting to increase awareness of how charlatans work.