6 ms·

You have interesting things to say, I'd like to hear more about the Google+ story for example, but your delivery (because you're so angry) makes it nigh unreada

• delllapssuck 14y ago
  That's funny. For me it had the opposite effect. Obviously he has a conscience, for anyone with an intellect who is not the least bit offended by Zynga-ism is, arguably, lacking in that capacity, i.e., in need of a real conscience.
  • dpritchett 14y ago
    I'm a huge fan of Church's writing in general but I too find the namecalling to be an unfortunate distraction.
• wamatt 14y ago
  "Makes it unreadable, to you" It seems like a common handicap amongst otherwise smart and capable people, to possess the inability to ignore tone, style grammar etc, and just judge the message on the strength of it's argument alone.
  • xianshou 14y ago
    "its" I consider it a strength to notice both and critique each accordingly. Otherwise you guarantee that you will inadvertently irritate either the big-picture people or the detail lovers (as you have just, ironically, seen demonstrated).
    • wamatt 14y ago
      Ironic? Err No, it is in fact rather apt. As of now, there are two replies to my comment, both nitpicking on the grammar, instead of DH6. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
  • MaysonL 14y ago
    Otherwise smart and capable people are often handicapped by an inability to ignore tone, style, grammar, etc. and judge the argument alone.
    • lutusp 14y ago
      You need to accept the fact that people will evaluate posts based not only on what they say, but on how they say it as well.
      • wamatt 14y ago
        No one needs to accept anything, I'd much rather listen to a badly worded, foul mouthed tirade that rang true, than eloquent diction, suffering from serious flaws in logic. And yes you can have both, but that is not relevant to the argument. The interesting part is that x, (being well spoken), is not a necessary and sufficient condition for y(having a solid argument), yet many behave as if that is the case.
        • lutusp 14y ago
          > No one needs to accept anything ... Suit yourself. But time is well-spent learning to craft readable sentences. > The interesting part is that x, (being well spoken), is not a necessary and sufficient condition for y(having a solid argument) It's necessary but not sufficient. Having literary skill won't save a bad argument, but lacking literary skill will surely undermine a good one. Grammatical ability is a sign of respect for the reader/listener. Without that sign of respect, one is placed at a crippling disadvantage in advance of presenting the argument.
          • wamatt 14y ago
            It's not necessary nor sufficient. The logic of argument, does not rely on the emotions of a listener. Eg. Claim1: The motherfucking sun is deff larger than da moonz! Without getting into petty semantic deconstruction, the essence of the statement is true, regardless of the respect (or lack thereof) for the listener. You seem to be confusing logic, with persuasion and communication.
  • 23david 14y ago
    A very very interesting point to think about... I don't see this original post as having a difficult tone or serious grammar issues. Would be interested to hear more of your thoughts about this issue... I tend to feel that when someone gets angry and start calling names, it signals that either the person hasn't really thought things out or the person has difficulty seeing other points of view. There are multiple perspectives on many engineering topics.