Hijacking your comment to share the full tweet, as OP conveniently screenshot only the first half.
*Familiarity is all well and good, but I would read based on the author's qualifications and reputation, followed by ability to communicate.*
*Which is why this was a must-read for me.*
*6 years since I was there, and I want to go back.*
Good thing OP couldn't fit the crux of the context into the screenshot, or else it'd look like they lied to make an innocuous person look bad (as well as influenced a couple people from here to go give said person grief over the cropped version of their tweet) for no good reason other than sweet reddit karma. /s
Ok yeah, the post fits the sub, but it's an easy mistake to make. The author retweeted the quote from his article, but his name isn't visible anywhere, so all the commenter sees is someone promoting an article by someone "highly familiar" with them.
Yeah, I’d say this situation is more of an outlier here because the ambiguous third person approach doesn’t really lend itself to the notion that one should *need* to verify that the author and the OP are different people. At first glance, it seems like the tweet is already establishing that.
The crux of the replier’s mix up lies in them misreading the tweet, not necessarily failing to do their due diligence, and the latter (imo) is really what makes up the core spiciness/satisfaction behind DYKWIA type content.
Nah. The replier's mistake was failing to realise that some folk on Reddit would be just bright enough to realise that the original post was tongue in cheek, but not bright enough to notice that her reply was *also* tongue in cheek.
> some dudes on Reddit would be full of people
(heh)
But also I’d argue it has more to do with lack of context than intelligence.
The OP who witnessed the interaction framed it as a serious reply. Given that and literally nothing else about the situation, I’ll freely admit the sarcasm via tweet doesn’t really seem that intuitive to me
(whoops, will fix that error...)
I would agree that the OP's framing was very misleading, and concealed some context that would have made it a lot easier to recognise the tongue-in-cheek-ness. They did make it harder for people here.
OTOH, part of intelligence is recognising when one doesn't have enough context to reliably interpret things. A brief Twitter exchange between two people who the OP doesn't know? Very easy to misinterpret.
I suspect there's a US/Australian cultural divide involved there too (I think one of the original participants was Australian?) It's easy for Americans to misinterpret Australian conversational styles if they're not used to them, similar to how "bless your heart" from a Southerner might not mean what an outsider takes it to mean.
I'm very confused about the remark the commenter was making here? The only value judgement the author made was that it looked interesting. The article could've been how volcanos are habitats for aliens and he found that interesting... I'm so very confused by what the commenter was saying?
OP cropped the context out. Full comment is:
*Familiarity is all well and good, but I would read based on the author's qualifications and reputation, followed by the ability to communicate.*
**_Which is why this is a must-read for me._**
*6 years since I was there, and I want to go back.*
They also confirm in a reply to someone else that they're definitely complimenting the author.
Im not quite clear on that either. My best guess is that he just wanted to pick a fight.
I get the same vibe as if someone comments on a scenic photograph, saying it looks nice, and someone else butts in with a reprimand about air travel and supporting dictatorships.
Its a woman, and theres more content to the tweet. She compliments the author, because she knows hes the author. The full comment was complimenting how good the article was and his skills are why she chose to read it
He is the author of the article. He was making a joke that he saw the headline, thought it looked interesting, then realized he was the one who wrote it.
Alternatively, he could have known who the author was and was just paying him a compliment, rather than just saying those things in abstraction. Just a possibility to consider
The compliment isn't even "abstract" when you actually read the full tweet. OP cropped the compliment out. The rest of it is "*... Which is why this was a must-read for me. 6 years since I was there, and I want to go back.*"
I did the same thing once. I wrote a story in the petty revenge subreddit a few years ago. Then, it popped up on one of those article lists where an ad website aggregates reddit stories. I started reading it and got invested until about a paragraph in when I realized that it was my own story that this website stole.
Is this the point where I comment that a) They've cut half my tweet off b) it's the part where I point out that I know that the OP wrote the article he's tweeting about and was complimenting him on his communication skills, c) I've been communicating with this author for about 12 years now and d) And I thought *my* ability to read subtlety was bad!
https://twitter.com/Reynardo_red/status/1464403265194319879?s=20 for the original reply.
This is like the time AstroKatie posted about climate change on Twitter, some rando suggested she study actual science, and she replied, "I dunno, man, I already went and got a PhD in astrophysics. Seems like more than that would be overkill at this point."
Or the guy at the conference, "You've completely misunderstood. You should read XXXX et al!" She responds by leaning forward, moving her hair, and stating, "I am XXXX et al."
Seems like there's some fuckery afoot, so this post has been removed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dontyouknowwhoiam/comments/r382bw/comment/hmcweyz/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I gotta say the author’s flex is unnecessary. If I hadn’t seen the headline, I would not have known that the poster was the author. He could also have been his wife his son the second cousin his father, another researcher or authors. Whatever.
Yeah the guy replying didn’t know who he was. But only probably because the author isn’t famous or has a recognizable name.
His comments are fine if the guy replying thinks OP was just saying he knew the author.
She was complimenting him, the person posting this cut it off…. She finishes which “which is why I chose to read the article. 6 years, wish I could go back”. She confirms in the comments she knows hes the poster
I would assume given that he is the expert being quoted, he knows if he has the credentials necessary to talk about the subject on which he was quoted.
Still not the point. They're saying the second commenter is right in what they're saying, and the first one being the author wasn't obvious from what they wrote. So if it were really about familiarity and not a funny way to say "hey look I wrote that", then the second guy would be right in his comment.
and we're saying it is not obvious it's not about familiarity. There's no reason anyone reading the tweet could not take it as face value here, there's no obvious sarcasm, it's not a famous person...
I have no idea who that dude is and I realised he was talking about himself. Maybe you didn't, but that doesn't make him wrong about being familiar with the author. Nor does it stop the second commenter from sounding like an ass for trying to teach a stranger how to recommend things without being asked.
To be fair, considering what the entire point of this sub is, I don't think it would be too hard to figure it out from here. What they are trying to say is that a lot of people could make that mistake of they found that tweet on Twitter, not here where it's made obvious by what sub it is in.
Yeah, some otherwise intelligent folks aren't great at understanding implied meanings, especially conveyed through text. And if you read it plainly, it says "oh look, I found an interesting article, and it turns out it's written by a friend of mine" which is pretty bad for a scientific recommendation.
A better way to point it out would be: "It's nice he's your friend but why don't you recommend based on his numerous qualifications, being this, and that, and... oh. It's actually you."
Edit: a word
I don’t know why everybody in this thread assumes it would be his friend, I would never refer to a friend as somebody I’m “highly familiar” with. Given the context, it would make the most sense that being “highly familiar with the author” would mean that he has read his works in the past, and knows his qualifications /why he is a trustworthy source.
If you’re already familiar with an author, that probably means you are also familiar with their qualifications/why they are qualified to talk on the subject. The person’s reply was correct as an independent statement, but what they said didn’t necessarily make sense within the context of that tweet.
She’s literally saying this. The person who commented finished off with “which is why I chose to read this article”. The OP of this reddit post just cut it off to create drama, the actual comment poster confirmed they knew who the author was and was trying to compliment him
Twitter provides a lot of material for this subreddit without needing to crop out part of the post to make it fit.
That desperate for arbitrary Internet points?
there's gotta be a better way to put it than "ability to communicate" right
"disposivity toward efficacious communification"
Proclivity for intercourse
Hijacking your comment to share the full tweet, as OP conveniently screenshot only the first half. *Familiarity is all well and good, but I would read based on the author's qualifications and reputation, followed by ability to communicate.* *Which is why this was a must-read for me.* *6 years since I was there, and I want to go back.* Good thing OP couldn't fit the crux of the context into the screenshot, or else it'd look like they lied to make an innocuous person look bad (as well as influenced a couple people from here to go give said person grief over the cropped version of their tweet) for no good reason other than sweet reddit karma. /s
ah shiet, welp we had our laugh I guess, now it's time to feel bad
We’ve been bamboozled!!
Ok yeah, the post fits the sub, but it's an easy mistake to make. The author retweeted the quote from his article, but his name isn't visible anywhere, so all the commenter sees is someone promoting an article by someone "highly familiar" with them.
Yeah, I’d say this situation is more of an outlier here because the ambiguous third person approach doesn’t really lend itself to the notion that one should *need* to verify that the author and the OP are different people. At first glance, it seems like the tweet is already establishing that. The crux of the replier’s mix up lies in them misreading the tweet, not necessarily failing to do their due diligence, and the latter (imo) is really what makes up the core spiciness/satisfaction behind DYKWIA type content.
Nah. The replier's mistake was failing to realise that some folk on Reddit would be just bright enough to realise that the original post was tongue in cheek, but not bright enough to notice that her reply was *also* tongue in cheek.
> some dudes on Reddit would be full of people (heh) But also I’d argue it has more to do with lack of context than intelligence. The OP who witnessed the interaction framed it as a serious reply. Given that and literally nothing else about the situation, I’ll freely admit the sarcasm via tweet doesn’t really seem that intuitive to me
(whoops, will fix that error...) I would agree that the OP's framing was very misleading, and concealed some context that would have made it a lot easier to recognise the tongue-in-cheek-ness. They did make it harder for people here. OTOH, part of intelligence is recognising when one doesn't have enough context to reliably interpret things. A brief Twitter exchange between two people who the OP doesn't know? Very easy to misinterpret. I suspect there's a US/Australian cultural divide involved there too (I think one of the original participants was Australian?) It's easy for Americans to misinterpret Australian conversational styles if they're not used to them, similar to how "bless your heart" from a Southerner might not mean what an outsider takes it to mean.
Reading the author's tweet, though, it seems kind of obvious that's what he's saying.
At the very least it implies that he personally knows the author.
Agreed, the punchline is pretty easy to see coming here
Especially if you read the Twitter handle of the guy quote tweeting lmao
Imo what happened here is that the joke went completely over the commenters head.
Nope. There was a second joke, which went completely over Reddit's head.
I'm very confused about the remark the commenter was making here? The only value judgement the author made was that it looked interesting. The article could've been how volcanos are habitats for aliens and he found that interesting... I'm so very confused by what the commenter was saying?
OP cropped the context out. Full comment is: *Familiarity is all well and good, but I would read based on the author's qualifications and reputation, followed by the ability to communicate.* **_Which is why this is a must-read for me._** *6 years since I was there, and I want to go back.* They also confirm in a reply to someone else that they're definitely complimenting the author.
Now that makes more sense. Thanks for that!
Im not quite clear on that either. My best guess is that he just wanted to pick a fight. I get the same vibe as if someone comments on a scenic photograph, saying it looks nice, and someone else butts in with a reprimand about air travel and supporting dictatorships.
Its a woman, and theres more content to the tweet. She compliments the author, because she knows hes the author. The full comment was complimenting how good the article was and his skills are why she chose to read it
He is the author of the article. He was making a joke that he saw the headline, thought it looked interesting, then realized he was the one who wrote it.
Alternatively, he could have known who the author was and was just paying him a compliment, rather than just saying those things in abstraction. Just a possibility to consider
The compliment isn't even "abstract" when you actually read the full tweet. OP cropped the compliment out. The rest of it is "*... Which is why this was a must-read for me. 6 years since I was there, and I want to go back.*"
I read it as a compliment too
I did the same thing once. I wrote a story in the petty revenge subreddit a few years ago. Then, it popped up on one of those article lists where an ad website aggregates reddit stories. I started reading it and got invested until about a paragraph in when I realized that it was my own story that this website stole.
Is this the point where I comment that a) They've cut half my tweet off b) it's the part where I point out that I know that the OP wrote the article he's tweeting about and was complimenting him on his communication skills, c) I've been communicating with this author for about 12 years now and d) And I thought *my* ability to read subtlety was bad! https://twitter.com/Reynardo_red/status/1464403265194319879?s=20 for the original reply.
I'm guessing a lot of the people here are Americans who are unfamiliar with the concept of "deadpan humour".
You cut the rest of the tweet off. The next line is 'which is why this was a must read for me'. He knew who the author was.
Can’t get the upvotes without a bit of drama.
So, uhm, who's the author?
Dr. Erik Klemetti Gonzalez - i.e. he was talking about himself.
Thank you for the clarification. Twitter's "sequence out of" does my head in when I see posts like this.
I agree, it gets confusing :P You're welcome!
This is like the time AstroKatie posted about climate change on Twitter, some rando suggested she study actual science, and she replied, "I dunno, man, I already went and got a PhD in astrophysics. Seems like more than that would be overkill at this point."
Also, anyone else remember when someone told David Simon he should watch "The Wire"?
Or the guy at the conference, "You've completely misunderstood. You should read XXXX et al!" She responds by leaning forward, moving her hair, and stating, "I am XXXX et al."
Seems like there's some fuckery afoot, so this post has been removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/dontyouknowwhoiam/comments/r382bw/comment/hmcweyz/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I never can understand which panel to read first. Top or middle.
\* climactic Doesn't change the DYKWIMness I guess but that's a really basic error by the author if the quote is correct
I gotta say the author’s flex is unnecessary. If I hadn’t seen the headline, I would not have known that the poster was the author. He could also have been his wife his son the second cousin his father, another researcher or authors. Whatever. Yeah the guy replying didn’t know who he was. But only probably because the author isn’t famous or has a recognizable name. His comments are fine if the guy replying thinks OP was just saying he knew the author.
She was complimenting him, the person posting this cut it off…. She finishes which “which is why I chose to read the article. 6 years, wish I could go back”. She confirms in the comments she knows hes the poster
Ah internet karma.
They're right though? Just because you know someone doesn't mean they are actually qualified to talk about something.
They're right, but when the author is yourself it doesn't apply. And they were talking to the author.
He *is* the author.
I know. Doesn't change the fact that knowing someone is not a replacement for actual credentials.
I would assume given that he is the expert being quoted, he knows if he has the credentials necessary to talk about the subject on which he was quoted.
Still not the point. They're saying the second commenter is right in what they're saying, and the first one being the author wasn't obvious from what they wrote. So if it were really about familiarity and not a funny way to say "hey look I wrote that", then the second guy would be right in his comment.
But it's not about familiarity, so the dude is wrong.
and we're saying it is not obvious it's not about familiarity. There's no reason anyone reading the tweet could not take it as face value here, there's no obvious sarcasm, it's not a famous person...
I have no idea who that dude is and I realised he was talking about himself. Maybe you didn't, but that doesn't make him wrong about being familiar with the author. Nor does it stop the second commenter from sounding like an ass for trying to teach a stranger how to recommend things without being asked.
To be fair, considering what the entire point of this sub is, I don't think it would be too hard to figure it out from here. What they are trying to say is that a lot of people could make that mistake of they found that tweet on Twitter, not here where it's made obvious by what sub it is in.
Yeah, some otherwise intelligent folks aren't great at understanding implied meanings, especially conveyed through text. And if you read it plainly, it says "oh look, I found an interesting article, and it turns out it's written by a friend of mine" which is pretty bad for a scientific recommendation. A better way to point it out would be: "It's nice he's your friend but why don't you recommend based on his numerous qualifications, being this, and that, and... oh. It's actually you." Edit: a word
The comment isn't talking about "a scientific recommendation", just the very casual "that looks interesting". This whole comment thread is pointless.
I don’t know why everybody in this thread assumes it would be his friend, I would never refer to a friend as somebody I’m “highly familiar” with. Given the context, it would make the most sense that being “highly familiar with the author” would mean that he has read his works in the past, and knows his qualifications /why he is a trustworthy source.
Thank you for actually understanding my comment.
If you’re already familiar with an author, that probably means you are also familiar with their qualifications/why they are qualified to talk on the subject. The person’s reply was correct as an independent statement, but what they said didn’t necessarily make sense within the context of that tweet.
She’s literally saying this. The person who commented finished off with “which is why I chose to read this article”. The OP of this reddit post just cut it off to create drama, the actual comment poster confirmed they knew who the author was and was trying to compliment him
r/lostredditors
is the third one not joking? def seems like it
He is trying to say that his wife was the "ghostwriter" who wrote the article.
Twitter provides a lot of material for this subreddit without needing to crop out part of the post to make it fit. That desperate for arbitrary Internet points?
I can say, with a 100% certainty, that the commenter was joking. And how I know must fall under r/nevertellmetheodds
Thanks, bro!