3 ms·
I don't see your criticism at all, and I don't think there's anything aggressive or vitriolic here. The article is specifically a rebuttal to a Wirecutter revi
by atombender 3y ago
I don't see your criticism at all, and I don't think there's anything aggressive or vitriolic here.
The article is specifically a rebuttal to a Wirecutter review, so the target audience is really anyone who cares what Wirecutter thinks about purifiers (a lot of people rely on it to guide their buying decisions, after all), and perhaps the staff at Wirecutter.
I can't speak to the article's technical accuracy, but it appears to do a good job of systematically breaking down their analysis using technical arguments, visualizations, and math.
- santoshalper 3y agoReally? You don't think there is anything aggressive or vitriolic? "Well, perhaps we should, I don’t know, read the IKEA website?" "...that totally coincidentally happens to pay affiliate marketing commissions." "Maybe we should be generous and ignore all the errors and misstatements above." "...then congratulations—you understand air filters better than the Wirecutter."
- imajoredinecon 3y agoNot to me, no. Snarky, yes; aggressive and vitriolic, no.
- yellow_lead 3y agoThis is extremely aggressive. I thought the author might jump out from my monitor and attack me after I read such statements.
- atombender 3y agoNot at all. I just see some mild sarcasm.
- jononomo 3y agoThis is not aggressive or vitriolic, lol -- this is just a writer with a point of view and a voice.
- baq 3y agois it polite? no. is it not accurate? also no. is it vulgar or offensive? no. unless you get easily offended, in which case you probably shouldn't spend too much time on the internet?