3 ms·

To be persuaded on such grounds is unfortunate, when relevant information is before you.

• wpietri 11y ago
  I'll give you points for consistency. But enough relevant information is already before me. With tens of millions of websites, I have no obligation to look carefully at each one to decide it's not for me.
  • igouy 11y ago
    You have no obligation to persuade yourself "that the criticisms are entirely valid" without seeing what's being discussed.
    • wpietri 11y ago
      Yes, exactly. In the same way that if I see bad Yelp reviews and the business owner responds poorly, I think there's no need to go by for a sandwich just to be sure.
      • igouy 11y ago
        Is it pointing to the FAQ that you consider "responds poorly", or is it pointing to Veedrac's refusal to be unambiguous?
        • wpietri 11y ago
          Maybe it is refusing to listen to people while presenting false binary choices that exclude the actual concerns.
          • igouy 11y ago
            That is a general accusation. It does not include any specific reference that would allow it to be understood or answered. Not helpful.
            • wpietri 11y ago
              It's not my job to argue you into understanding your problems. If you'd like someone to do that, I'd suggest paying a therapist.
              • igouy 11y ago
                From accusation to abuse.
                • wpietri 11y ago
                  No, it's an honest suggestion. If you're having trouble understanding other people, therapists can be immensely helpful. It's not my job to educate you, but you can make it theirs.