3 ms·
It’s incumbent on you to make your point with contemporary examples or heavily explain why old ones are needed (and even then it severely weakens the point). I
by slededit 8y ago
It’s incumbent on you to make your point with contemporary examples or heavily explain why old ones are needed (and even then it severely weakens the point). I too was extremely confused with your examples.
Sure there should be charity in reading but the default assumption is not that your examples are 26 years old. Many people here were either children or not even born yet.
- ElBarto 8y agoEven if those examples are old-ish, anyone should understand the point if they actually tried. As for being children... You don't say.
- slededit 8y agoIf your only examples are 25+ years old then the question becomes why are there no contemporary examples for this supposedly common phenomena. Its not a good rhetorical tactic. Nor is insulting other participants in the conversation.
- ElBarto 8y agoThese are not 'my examples', these are the ones from Al Ries book. It does not mean that there are no examples of it right now. Examples illustrate a point, they are not the point. In fact, as mentioned the fact that there is sometimes not even space for a second brand right now illustrates the relevance of the insight. What is insulting is the laziness and arrogance here.
- slededit 8y agoWell I think we're past being constructive, but don't you find it at all arrogant to demand people invest time researching your comments? There are thousands of comments made here every day. We're not peer reviewing articles here - comments should stand on their own.
- ElBarto 8y agoThese weren't my comments... I was explaining the examples given by a quoted classic book by Al Ries, which someone apparently better qualified than Al Ries thought were all wrong. You apparently haven't followed at all or made any effort. Quite extraordinary to see that on HN.