3 ms·

You weaken an otherwise useful post by using words like "bullshit". The problem with "bullshit" isn't that you are cursing. It is a way to dismiss an article

You weaken an otherwise useful post by using words like "bullshit". The problem with "bullshit" isn't that you are cursing. It is a way to dismiss an article with out actually engaging in any of the arguments made by the article. At the end you do hint that you believe the article gives a biased report of history, but you give no specifics, and it comes many paragraphs after "what bullshit".

cchooper 18y ago
I see nothing wrong with beginning the post "What bullshit". It's a concise statement of what he believes. And what's wrong with stating your belief up-front and then providing the argument afterwards?
- lliiffee 18y ago
  My objection is that he does not provide the evidence! He gives a bunch of sensible reasons that Dvorak might be better, but never once addresses anything the article says. You don't get the right to call something "bullshit" with out giving your reasons. If you do give your reasons, saying "bullshit" is unnecessary.
  - cchooper 18y ago
    So if you give an argument for a conclusion then you shouldn't state what the conclusion is? Judge that point with reference to your own comments.
    - lliiffee 18y ago
      You are mischaracterizing what I said. Of course, stating the conclusion is fine. My point is that he never gave an argument for the conclusion that the article is bullshit. There is not a single statement in the article whose truth has been called into question.
Hexstream 18y ago
I won't address the article's historical claims for the same reason I won't address the Bible's historical claims: - Addressing those historical claims would be an implicit acknowledgement of their relevance, but I believe they aren't. - It would take a massive effort of research on my part to verify the historical accuracy of the claims, and this effort would be pretty aggravating for me since as I stated the claims are not relevant whether true or false. Also, it's disproportionally easier to make a new (BS) historical claim than to definitely disprove it so it's a losing battle. And let's see... First August Dvorak claimed his layout is better, then there was the Fable of the keys, which said it wasn't, then there was the Fable of the Fable which contradicted that... And I'm sure there's a Fable of the Fable of the Fable lurking somewhere. So if you believe this historical BS is important, help yourself.

cchooper 18y ago

I see nothing wrong with beginning the post "What bullshit". It's a concise statement of what he believes. And what's wrong with stating your belief up-front and then providing the argument afterwards?

lliiffee 18y ago
My objection is that he does not provide the evidence! He gives a bunch of sensible reasons that Dvorak might be better, but never once addresses anything the article says. You don't get the right to call something "bullshit" with out giving your reasons. If you do give your reasons, saying "bullshit" is unnecessary.
- cchooper 18y ago
  So if you give an argument for a conclusion then you shouldn't state what the conclusion is? Judge that point with reference to your own comments.
  - lliiffee 18y ago
    You are mischaracterizing what I said. Of course, stating the conclusion is fine. My point is that he never gave an argument for the conclusion that the article is bullshit. There is not a single statement in the article whose truth has been called into question.

Hexstream 18y ago

I won't address the article's historical claims for the same reason I won't address the Bible's historical claims: - Addressing those historical claims would be an implicit acknowledgement of their relevance, but I believe they aren't. - It would take a massive effort of research on my part to verify the historical accuracy of the claims, and this effort would be pretty aggravating for me since as I stated the claims are not relevant whether true or false. Also, it's disproportionally easier to make a new (BS) historical claim than to definitely disprove it so it's a losing battle. And let's see... First August Dvorak claimed his layout is better, then there was the Fable of the keys, which said it wasn't, then there was the Fable of the Fable which contradicted that... And I'm sure there's a Fable of the Fable of the Fable lurking somewhere. So if you believe this historical BS is important, help yourself.