3 ms·
The main argument from that article is "if you disagree with me I'll call you silly names", it isn't that convincing.
by DougBTX 6y ago
The main argument from that article is "if you disagree with me I'll call you silly names", it isn't that convincing.
- jml7c5 6y agoWhat do you mean? The only objectionable content I see is a single mention of "little-squarists" [quotation marks included in original text], but that seems hardly enough of an insult to disregard the rest of the paper.
- DougBTX 6y agoThe first half of the paper is spent building up to the name-calling, it starts with "little squares", reaching a crescendo with the revelation that it is not the squares that are little, but the people! The closest it gets to a comparison ends abruptly with "we will not even further consider this possibility". The second half of the article continues as if the first half has convincing, just asserting that his solution is "so easy after all" that it must be right.