3 ms·

Your entirely predictable defense of your husband notwithstanding; I don't mean to diminish Thomas's contributions to the Javascript community at large nor the

Your entirely predictable defense of your husband notwithstanding; I don't mean to diminish Thomas's contributions to the Javascript community at large nor the quality of the work he does. I hope I made that point entirely clear in my original post (and if I hadn't, I hope I am doing so now). I call it how I see it; and I see no need to repeat myself as to why I believe what I posted. Attempting to call my argument fallacious with absolutely no justification other than correcting one minor (and somewhat irrelevant given that self-marketing is important regardless of one's current occupation) incongruity is little more than an attempt to drag me into a 2-on-1 battle royal in which I refuse to participate.

ahoyhere 15y ago
You spent 47% of your words in your comment on that paragraph because "somebody had to say it", and it was incorrect. Is 50% of what you write being incorrect a "minor" issue? And as for my entirely predictable defense of my husband… anyone who's watched us work together would laugh at that statement. But in this case, he's right, and you barely mounted an argument except that: "Whitespace isn't significant" -- except that, of course, by ASI rules, it is sometimes and not others. You can argue over the meaning of the word "significant" and say it is all or nothing, but that is not what the rules of ASI indicate. Call it what you will -- sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. "This is a calculated marketer at work, trying to sell consulting and training" -- which is untrue. As for my comment being "little more than an attempt to drag me into a 2-on-1 battle royal" -- is Thomas even addressing you? Not at all, from what I can see.
- bcrescimanno 15y ago
  Only responding to clarify: the only part I will admit was incorrect was the quote, "and, by extension, his consulting and training enterprises." Everything else I said I stand by 100%. Maybe I'm wrong and that's not his intent--but it's certainly the perception I have; having watched this same scene play out time and again.
  - ahoyhere 14y ago
    Your whole argument about him doing this for promotional purposes hinges on the idea that he gets something out of it (e.g. sales). You have no real reason to believe that he takes a "contrarian" position to "get a rise out of others," other than your implication that he gains by "marketing opportunities." In fact, your whole argument was a subtle way of saying "He doesn't really believe this, he's just peddling shit in order to make sales." None of which you can support, especially since the implied gain (the sales) doesn't exist. You have no real reason to believe, much less state publicly, that Thomas is disingenuous in his opinions. This makes it an ad hominem attack, by the by.

ahoyhere 15y ago

You spent 47% of your words in your comment on that paragraph because "somebody had to say it", and it was incorrect. Is 50% of what you write being incorrect a "minor" issue? And as for my entirely predictable defense of my husband… anyone who's watched us work together would laugh at that statement. But in this case, he's right, and you barely mounted an argument except that: "Whitespace isn't significant" -- except that, of course, by ASI rules, it is sometimes and not others. You can argue over the meaning of the word "significant" and say it is all or nothing, but that is not what the rules of ASI indicate. Call it what you will -- sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. "This is a calculated marketer at work, trying to sell consulting and training" -- which is untrue. As for my comment being "little more than an attempt to drag me into a 2-on-1 battle royal" -- is Thomas even addressing you? Not at all, from what I can see.

bcrescimanno 15y ago
Only responding to clarify: the only part I will admit was incorrect was the quote, "and, by extension, his consulting and training enterprises." Everything else I said I stand by 100%. Maybe I'm wrong and that's not his intent--but it's certainly the perception I have; having watched this same scene play out time and again.
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  Your whole argument about him doing this for promotional purposes hinges on the idea that he gets something out of it (e.g. sales). You have no real reason to believe that he takes a "contrarian" position to "get a rise out of others," other than your implication that he gains by "marketing opportunities." In fact, your whole argument was a subtle way of saying "He doesn't really believe this, he's just peddling shit in order to make sales." None of which you can support, especially since the implied gain (the sales) doesn't exist. You have no real reason to believe, much less state publicly, that Thomas is disingenuous in his opinions. This makes it an ad hominem attack, by the by.