4 ms·
> The response explained why your post was not great and then elaborated on how you could have done it better. That’s pretty much the text book definition of co
by aikah 8y ago
> The response explained why your post was not great and then elaborated on how you could have done it better. That’s pretty much the text book definition of constructive.
Since when personal attacks are deemed constructive? There is nothing constructive in his patronizing comment. How about one of you formulates a technical rebuttal to my initial statement as I asked and you quit being meta?
- Bjartr 8y agoYou both could've done better in constructing your responses. He explained why yours was lacking, you explained why his was lacking. You both made valid points. As for actually answering your question, probably only Walt's author could answer that. Unfortunately, due to your condescending choice of phrasing, he may choose to not engage in discussion with you, thinking that you're not sincerely interested in his answer. I hope he looks past that and does answer you, as I'm sure others are wondering similarly.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]