4 ms·

In your blog entry that you linked here - the one titled "Who's the Dick?" - you called John Gruber a scumbag, presuming that he dug for dirt instead of maybe f

In your blog entry that you linked here - the one titled "Who's the Dick?" - you called John Gruber a scumbag, presuming that he dug for dirt instead of maybe following conversations where someone pointed info out, and then insisted that the music and artwork was both trivial and substantially transformative enough to, in your opinion, suck. If you want to write about being decent online, you need to write more clearly and less muddled. And if you feel like something you've previously written is relevant, link it, but don't contort too hard for a connection, because non sequitur reasons - like the one about Apple fawning over him - read like spam rather than someone trying to be part of the conversation.

leephillips 14y ago
I misunderstood: I thought you meant I had called someone a name here in the comments. In my linked article I tried to lend some support to Maisel, whom Gruber had obscenely attacked, repeatedly calling him a "dick", by saying "If Maisel is a 'dick,' then John Gruber is a scumbag". You are welcome to characterize this as "calling people names", but I think that's an odd characterization. In the article I supply plenty of supporting evidence for "scumbag", which I nevertheless entomb in a contingent clause. "presuming that he dug for dirt instead of maybe following conversations": I presumed nothing; he himself linked to the article that I claim he used disingenuously. He told us where he got the "dirt". I notice that you don't seem to try to defend your other claims, but I'm having some trouble making grammatical sense out of a few of your comments. You seem to be complaining that my writing is "muddled", but I can't be sure, because the very sentence where you are trying to do that is a syntactical trainwreck. I thought you might have had a point about me not being on topic, but the upvotes on the comments you are complaining about give me some reassurance.

leephillips 14y ago

I misunderstood: I thought you meant I had called someone a name here in the comments. In my linked article I tried to lend some support to Maisel, whom Gruber had obscenely attacked, repeatedly calling him a "dick", by saying "If Maisel is a 'dick,' then John Gruber is a scumbag". You are welcome to characterize this as "calling people names", but I think that's an odd characterization. In the article I supply plenty of supporting evidence for "scumbag", which I nevertheless entomb in a contingent clause. "presuming that he dug for dirt instead of maybe following conversations": I presumed nothing; he himself linked to the article that I claim he used disingenuously. He told us where he got the "dirt". I notice that you don't seem to try to defend your other claims, but I'm having some trouble making grammatical sense out of a few of your comments. You seem to be complaining that my writing is "muddled", but I can't be sure, because the very sentence where you are trying to do that is a syntactical trainwreck. I thought you might have had a point about me not being on topic, but the upvotes on the comments you are complaining about give me some reassurance.