3 ms·

No, it's not. It's sufficiently bad that I won't waste my time reading more articles by that author, and I will probably take a pass on articles by the Register

by orib 18y ago

No, it's not. It's sufficiently bad that I won't waste my time reading more articles by that author, and I will probably take a pass on articles by the Register, since their quality standards are low enough to let that drivel on. (Actually, I've been avoiding The Register for a few years now, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt when this appeared on hacker news. It was a mistake.)

jackchristopher 18y ago
With writing (or anything), if you can't say something with a calm demeanor, it's probably not worth listening to. Rants, raves, or a negative, cynical tone suggests an ill-conceived idea; it's likely an emotional reaction.
- sah 18y ago
  I think the idea was to be entertaining.
- orib 18y ago
  If you read my first post, I'm not objecting to the tone so much as the way that it's used to cover the emptiness of the article. I can appreciate a good angry rant -- I've written some myself, and I tend to enjoy Zed Shaw's rants -- but an angry rant that slams things without justification is simply childishness and poor journalism. Sorry. Edit: Oops, I totally misread your post. Sorry about that. For some reason I thought you were justifying the tone of the article. I hear that learning to read can solve this sort of problem ;-) I agree that a good writer can discuss something without an angry rant, but I disagree that an angry/cynical tone implies an ill-conceived idea. I'd suggest that bad writers will try to use the angry rant format to hide the poverty of their ideas, but just as often a good writer will use it well as a rhetorical device, making an otherwise dull article more amusing, and driving home the important points. But either way, the format of the writing is (or rather, should be) secondary to the content. Edit: Clarified what I wrote a bit
  - jackchristopher 18y ago
    I was making a general comment. Not attacking the article, or your comment in particular. Does anyone disagree that an angry rant, as a rule of thumb, probably means an ill-conceived idea? EDIT: If you misread my comment, that's my fault. I should have written better.
    - pchristensen 18y ago
      I disagree. It is often the result of a frustrating experience.
    - orib 18y ago
      Nah, I was distracted when I read it. It's clear, I'm just stupid.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Often valuable information is conveyed in a not-so calm demeanor. The delivery may not be the best, however.
gizmo 18y ago
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think the article is great. But it -does- accomplish exactly what the author wants. People talk about it. It reaches the top of HN. And despite of our distaste of The Register... we still read it. So when I say it's "Good enough" it just means it gets the job done. The purpose of the article is clearly attracting attention. Being ignored worse than being disliked, after all. And it does attract a lot of (negative) attention. The poor writing even contributes to the goal.

by orib 18y ago

jackchristopher 18y ago

With writing (or anything), if you can't say something with a calm demeanor, it's probably not worth listening to. Rants, raves, or a negative, cynical tone suggests an ill-conceived idea; it's likely an emotional reaction.

sah 18y ago
I think the idea was to be entertaining.
orib 18y ago
If you read my first post, I'm not objecting to the tone so much as the way that it's used to cover the emptiness of the article. I can appreciate a good angry rant -- I've written some myself, and I tend to enjoy Zed Shaw's rants -- but an angry rant that slams things without justification is simply childishness and poor journalism. Sorry. Edit: Oops, I totally misread your post. Sorry about that. For some reason I thought you were justifying the tone of the article. I hear that learning to read can solve this sort of problem ;-) I agree that a good writer can discuss something without an angry rant, but I disagree that an angry/cynical tone implies an ill-conceived idea. I'd suggest that bad writers will try to use the angry rant format to hide the poverty of their ideas, but just as often a good writer will use it well as a rhetorical device, making an otherwise dull article more amusing, and driving home the important points. But either way, the format of the writing is (or rather, should be) secondary to the content. Edit: Clarified what I wrote a bit
- jackchristopher 18y ago
  I was making a general comment. Not attacking the article, or your comment in particular. Does anyone disagree that an angry rant, as a rule of thumb, probably means an ill-conceived idea? EDIT: If you misread my comment, that's my fault. I should have written better.
  - pchristensen 18y ago
    I disagree. It is often the result of a frustrating experience.
  - orib 18y ago
    Nah, I was distracted when I read it. It's clear, I'm just stupid.
stcredzero 18y ago
Often valuable information is conveyed in a not-so calm demeanor. The delivery may not be the best, however.

gizmo 18y ago

I think you misunderstand me. I don't think the article is great. But it -does- accomplish exactly what the author wants. People talk about it. It reaches the top of HN. And despite of our distaste of The Register... we still read it. So when I say it's "Good enough" it just means it gets the job done. The purpose of the article is clearly attracting attention. Being ignored worse than being disliked, after all. And it does attract a lot of (negative) attention. The poor writing even contributes to the goal.