4 ms·

>I don’t misrepresent the Author at all Wow. Lets recap: You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own store: Provably false.

by mthoms 6y ago

>I don’t misrepresent the Author at all Wow. Lets recap: You claimed the author never mentioned Epics' stated goal of running their own store: Provably false. You claimed the author wanted Apple to get no percentage: Provably false. He never said that, you're inferring it (!?) from his support of Epic. Yet Epic earns 12% in its own store. Presumably Epic thinks 12% is a reasonable take for an App store? You claimed the author wants Epic to have their own store: Provably false. The author thinks Epic is bluffing (Epic may or may not want a store, but what we're debating is what the _author_ said, not what Epic said/wants/believes). You've misrepresented the author at least three times (I've noticed others but don't have the time or inclination to point them out). >Your read of the piece is based on assuming Epic is being dishonest in their objective. My reading of the piece is based on the words actually written by the author. You're inferring a whole bunch of things based on the authors' "support" of Epic. Stop focussing on what you think Epic wants and read the words the author wrote. Take a hint from the replies you've received here and try to do better.

zepto 6y ago
I’m doing just fine, but you are misrepresenting me now. If Epic runs their own Store alongside Apple’s and takes 12%, then Apple will get nothing from those sales. Oddly, your previous comment contains a quote which agrees with me: >Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which you gave chosen to now disregard. This is simply what it means for Epic to be allowed to run their own Store. I am not focusing on what “I think” Epic wants. I’m focusing on what Epic says that they want, and what the author says. Why should I only base my view on the author’s words? Facts matter when putting those words in context, unless you are suggesting we critique the piece purely as a work of fiction. The author’s position is that Epic is lying about what they want for strategic reasons. As you say, a bluff. But the author is dismissing opinions to the contrary of their own as “bullshit” or the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking about etc. My reading is based on the words the author is saying. You can do better by addressing my points as written and not misrepresenting them. The piece is terrible, and contains all of be problems I attribute to it. It also contains some valid opinions and interesting ideas to debate, but it claims them as fact, and uses innuendo to fend off criticism. An obvious example is the dismissal of security concerns as ‘bullshit’. The author asserts that people who don’t have experience shouldn’t comment or be taken seriously, but we have no reason to believe the author has any serious security experience, because their claim was to expertise is that they have been developing an excellent Markdown editor for the past decade. See how the piece is bad? If you start to acknowledge what’s true about the faults of the article, we might be able to have a reasonable debate over the parts of the article which are worth exploring. If you can’t admit that the article contains problems, so be it.
- mthoms 6y ago
  Stop. Just stop. You may have missed it (surprise, surprise!) but I've already been quite clear: >I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen, and then shamelessly inventing several of your own. I don't know how to be any clearer to you. I really don't. I don't care about the article anymore. You've taken out any potential fun from debating the actual message by being blatantly and unabashedly dishonest about its content. Please, please take a hint from the replies to your comments here. No one will engage you in civilized debate when you demonstrate such a careless disregard for trying to understand what is written in front of you. Oh, and a stylistic tip that might help (assuming you're actually interested in having respectful, honest, civilized debate someday): Try using paragraphs in your writing. There's a reason paragraphs are a thing; disjointed random sentences come across as incoherent rambling. Don't bother replying. I'm not interested. Best of luck.

by mthoms 6y ago

zepto 6y ago

I’m doing just fine, but you are misrepresenting me now. If Epic runs their own Store alongside Apple’s and takes 12%, then Apple will get nothing from those sales. Oddly, your previous comment contains a quote which agrees with me: >Epic doesn’t want a reduction to 5%, it wants to pay nothing and run its own store on iOS. Which you gave chosen to now disregard. This is simply what it means for Epic to be allowed to run their own Store. I am not focusing on what “I think” Epic wants. I’m focusing on what Epic says that they want, and what the author says. Why should I only base my view on the author’s words? Facts matter when putting those words in context, unless you are suggesting we critique the piece purely as a work of fiction. The author’s position is that Epic is lying about what they want for strategic reasons. As you say, a bluff. But the author is dismissing opinions to the contrary of their own as “bullshit” or the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking about etc. My reading is based on the words the author is saying. You can do better by addressing my points as written and not misrepresenting them. The piece is terrible, and contains all of be problems I attribute to it. It also contains some valid opinions and interesting ideas to debate, but it claims them as fact, and uses innuendo to fend off criticism. An obvious example is the dismissal of security concerns as ‘bullshit’. The author asserts that people who don’t have experience shouldn’t comment or be taken seriously, but we have no reason to believe the author has any serious security experience, because their claim was to expertise is that they have been developing an excellent Markdown editor for the past decade. See how the piece is bad? If you start to acknowledge what’s true about the faults of the article, we might be able to have a reasonable debate over the parts of the article which are worth exploring. If you can’t admit that the article contains problems, so be it.

mthoms 6y ago
Stop. Just stop. You may have missed it (surprise, surprise!) but I've already been quite clear: >I'm not interested in debating the App store or the article per se. I just wanted to point out the irony of harshly condemning him for using strawmen, and then shamelessly inventing several of your own. I don't know how to be any clearer to you. I really don't. I don't care about the article anymore. You've taken out any potential fun from debating the actual message by being blatantly and unabashedly dishonest about its content. Please, please take a hint from the replies to your comments here. No one will engage you in civilized debate when you demonstrate such a careless disregard for trying to understand what is written in front of you. Oh, and a stylistic tip that might help (assuming you're actually interested in having respectful, honest, civilized debate someday): Try using paragraphs in your writing. There's a reason paragraphs are a thing; disjointed random sentences come across as incoherent rambling. Don't bother replying. I'm not interested. Best of luck.