Does it matter what your point was? You spread manipulative framing, don't do it.
That's just silly. Of course it matters what the point was.
Notig was using Gavin's words to imply that Gavin had a certain intent. The only way to point out that Gavin had a different intent was to point out what that different intent was.
Yes. Of course.
But instead of saying Gavin was responding to an argument against a particular reasoning that blocksize has to remain small forever for the sake of inefficient miners (as he framed it) you could have accurately said that he was responding to an argument against a particular reasoning that blocksize has to remain small forever for the sake of security and decentralization.
See the difference? It's subtle, but that's how manipulation usually is.
Sure, but then Gavin would be in here accusing me of spreading retep's manipulative framing.
It seems that either way I'm using someone's framing. That can't be avoided. Since Notig was using Gavin's words to make his point, I was using Gavin's words to show that Notig misunderstood Gavin's point.
If Notig had used retep's words and misunderstood retep's point, I'd have used retep's words (along with whatever framing they included) to show that Notig misunderstood retep's point.
Sorry, I just don't see the issue here. I wasn't arguing that Gavin was right (or wrong), only that Notig was basing his questions on a misunderstanding of what Gavin was saying.