5 ms·
I agree. He's one of those obnoxious philosophers who thinks his new way to show something as not being well-defined proves he's always right.
by powera 9y ago
I agree. He's one of those obnoxious philosophers who thinks his new way to show something as not being well-defined proves he's always right.
- danjayh 9y agoQuite generous, referring to him as a philosopher. I mistook his 'philosophy' for a bad case of verbal diarrhea. I think he could benefit from George Orwell's rules: (i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
- StavrosK 9y agoThe whole article is /r/iamverysmart material.