3 ms·

You did start the comment with "My reaction is: so?", a statement seemingly directed at the actual content of the article, not the (largely irrelevant in the c

by joel_ms 16y ago

You did start the comment with "My reaction is: so?", a statement seemingly directed at the actual content of the article, not the (largely irrelevant in the context of the article) content of the button. People got confused by your somewhat unclear (at least to some people), off-topic comment, and you started ranting about people not using their brains, lacking reading comprehension, being lazy and small-minded. Wouldn't it suffice to point out that you were commenting on the content of the button, without attacking the people confused by the comment?

stcredzero 16y ago
People got confused by your somewhat unclear (at least to some people), off-topic comment What actually happened: People read the first line, jumped to a conclusion, and further reading/brain activity was a fail. I think it speaks volumes when you have to comment with this level of "tl;dr" mentality in mind. I did not have to do that in days past. I long for the days when I could simply express thoughts needing 3 or more sentences for complete expression on HN. This used to be the big advantage of commenting in text over speaking. Now, I have to treat the first line of each comment like a headline, because the pool of readers has already jumped to a conclusion.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  It's up to the writer to communicate their thoughts clearly. A writer should only blame their audience for not understanding if their statements are obviously unambiguous. However, you were writing on an online forum about a topic that was only tangentially related to the subject, began your post with an inflammatory statement, never clearly stated what you were even talking about, and then blamed the lack of comprehension on the other end. If you're communicating in text to strangers, it's best to err on the side of being overly specific, especially when speaking about a different topic than the one being currently discussed. Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but people blaming their poor communication on others is a pet peeve of mine.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    However, you were writing on an online forum about a topic that was only tangentially related to the subject The article was about a button, and what Tolkien's estate did about it. I guess you could say "only tangentially." If you're communicating in text to strangers, it's best to err on the side of being overly specific More specificity is fine. Specificity is not the issue here. If you knew of the contents of the button, the comment makes sense. If you read the comment, then looked at the link and the article, the comment makes sense. I draw the line at those reading only the 1st sentence and not bothering to make sense of the 2nd and 3rd sentence. How is that any different from a dog parsing an angry utterance from a human containing 'Fido'?

by joel_ms 16y ago

stcredzero 16y ago

People got confused by your somewhat unclear (at least to some people), off-topic comment What actually happened: People read the first line, jumped to a conclusion, and further reading/brain activity was a fail. I think it speaks volumes when you have to comment with this level of "tl;dr" mentality in mind. I did not have to do that in days past. I long for the days when I could simply express thoughts needing 3 or more sentences for complete expression on HN. This used to be the big advantage of commenting in text over speaking. Now, I have to treat the first line of each comment like a headline, because the pool of readers has already jumped to a conclusion.

jokermatt999 16y ago
It's up to the writer to communicate their thoughts clearly. A writer should only blame their audience for not understanding if their statements are obviously unambiguous. However, you were writing on an online forum about a topic that was only tangentially related to the subject, began your post with an inflammatory statement, never clearly stated what you were even talking about, and then blamed the lack of comprehension on the other end. If you're communicating in text to strangers, it's best to err on the side of being overly specific, especially when speaking about a different topic than the one being currently discussed. Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but people blaming their poor communication on others is a pet peeve of mine.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  However, you were writing on an online forum about a topic that was only tangentially related to the subject The article was about a button, and what Tolkien's estate did about it. I guess you could say "only tangentially." If you're communicating in text to strangers, it's best to err on the side of being overly specific More specificity is fine. Specificity is not the issue here. If you knew of the contents of the button, the comment makes sense. If you read the comment, then looked at the link and the article, the comment makes sense. I draw the line at those reading only the 1st sentence and not bothering to make sense of the 2nd and 3rd sentence. How is that any different from a dog parsing an angry utterance from a human containing 'Fido'?