4 ms·

"...I mean, EE was actively making the Internet a worse place..." How so? Besides Mr Atwood picking the only available target and hiding his own ignorance of E

"...I mean, EE was actively making the Internet a worse place..." How so? Besides Mr Atwood picking the only available target and hiding his own ignorance of EE's culture, systems and processes behind hyperbole that can charitably be described as Limbaughesque? I don't mind as long as people recognize it for what it is... but if you consider Mr Atwood's (or Mr Spolsky's, for that matter) characterizations as Gospel, then I have some beachfront property in Topeka, KS I'm willing to sell you. Evil, in my view, is telling you that you're always going to get to use SO at no charge -- and knowing that it isn't true unless the people telling you that can keep convincing other rich people to give them money (in which case it isn't evil -- it's just a very well-played Ponzi scheme).

icebraining 15y ago
How so? By making people lose hours and hours of life (combined) when they clicked on an EE link from Google that lied about the contents of the page. There's a reason why I blocked the site from the search results before I even heard of Jeff Atwood. if you consider Mr Atwood's (or Mr Spolsky's, for that matter) characterizations as Gospel No, I just agree with them on that. Evil, in my view, is telling you that you're always going to get to use SO at no charge Can you please point out to where they claimed that? If they did and they do start charging for normal use, I agree that it'll be wrong. But Tu quoque is a fallacy, you know?