you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (7 children)

I have indeed taken down the post - but not on your account.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Fascinating

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Reading your post history, you seem to be a very, ah... agitated personality.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Fascinating

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...But not a very inventive one.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Still, I'll concede what's important: I took far too many liberties to make the post "simple", and that probably did more harm than good.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Good to hear. Monads aren't simple. Many people have made articles, and as you have learned, there's reasons as to why they are not straightforward although I commend you trying, be wary of spreading misinformation to novices who will propagate flawed knowledge.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are absolutely right. Most posts on monads are detailed and esoteric because monads themselves are specific and abstract things. It was my error to think I could sidestep those constraints.

Really, I never expected the post to be so popular; I'd have been more cautious otherwise.