4 ms·
The initial text could be a misunderstanding or just an unfortunate choice of words. But the reviewer doubled down and went political 8n his response, showing t
by zibzab 5y ago
The initial text could be a misunderstanding or just an unfortunate choice of words. But the reviewer doubled down and went political 8n his response, showing that this was not really the case.
I would probably have let it rest at this point, but I am happy she did not. It sometimes takes a "naive idiot" (her words) to improve things.
- bryanrasmussen 5y agofrankly I had a hard time understanding the response, my feelings on it were: This guy is too arrogant and insecure to just admit he got it wrong Failing that this guy is too stupid to come up with a rationally understandable argument why his report is worthwhile anyway, or in place of too stupid which after all is rude, to poor in the skill of rhetoric to craft a response that does not make them sound like a raving loony. Although when you're arguing you own case the emotional connection makes other things more difficult, hence the saying that a lawyer who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client. So I guess I just sort of discount the response as in too weird to decipher. Probably shouldn't do that though.