• Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    They restated the definition.

    No, they didn’t. Your reading comprehension just blows.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.

      It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.

      It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”

      Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m not here to prove their ideas, so getting mad at me for you disagreeing with them is… juvenile.

        I’m not “defensive” in the slightest. You just feel attacked, so you’re projecting that, despite my comments being extremely neutral.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I did not.

            I commented on your reading comprehension, and not even in as surly a tone as you had been using at me.

            You’re directing anger towards me for them having sensationalism in their piece? How does that make sense?

            I’m merely pointing what the text states.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.

              I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                17 hours ago

                No, it isn’t a personal attack. You commented “the article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding”.

                It does.

                You didn’t see it. Despite (presumably) reading the article. This means you didn’t understand what you read. I pointed that out. You got rather pissy about it, and here we are.