Yes, but when the original author said it he was rude and condescending. Rude because there is simply no polite way to call someone a loser. Condescending becau

Yes, but when the original author said it he was rude and condescending. Rude because there is simply no polite way to call someone a loser. Condescending because he assumed that ignorance was the only reason someone would buy something of low quality and that everyone reading the article would have money to buy high quality things. Almost everyone in the U.S. has access to an internet connection. If not in their home, in their local library. The median household income in the U.S. is around $50k. Many people earn much less than that, and they still manage to get access to the internet. If you are used to living with above-median income, you should be humble when saying what people earning much less than median can and can't afford. And that's just considering the U.S., which is easily in the top 10 of median income. By contrast, yason did not assume anything about the readers ability to afford things and he or she did not put anyone down, except maybe people who buy the best of absolutely everything and still claim to be frugal, and even then, yason only addressed their behavior, not them as people. There is a right and a wrong way to say things. The original author went with the wrong way.