Hacker News Reader

I've elaborated plenty in the post you literally just responded to. Nothing further needs to be said. Suffice it to say that your original claim was unjustifiable given what we currently know.

View on HN

You didn’t elaborate on the points I asked about. You literally argued with the response from a chat bot. You can’t just say “QED, I win”. Until I get satisfactory definitions the rest of your response is unjustifiable.

as a third party observer, you never defined genuine creativity,

you've been called and it turns out your argument was merely a bluff

That’s quite alright. I’ve written amply about the topic of creativity in this thread in order to delineate it from “creative” meaning “something that creates”. If you don’t know what “genuine” means my Webster’s definition isn’t going to help anything. I’m not keen to have a debate over adjectives when I’ve more than explained my stance. I never claimed to be introducing some new term of art. If that somehow means I’m bluffing, so be it.

I viewed the curt demand I provide a definition as rude and a cheap tactic intended to disrupt a discussion. And the ensuing discussion with that particular person did nothing to convince me otherwise. Fortunately, I don’t owe them a reply and you don’t have to believe me. It’s all good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com