3 ms·
My point was not whether your critique was valid—certainly you're allowed to come to those conclusions based on your own needs. My point was that your argument
by calinet6 14y ago
My point was not whether your critique was valid—certainly you're allowed to come to those conclusions based on your own needs.
My point was that your argument was silly and pretentious, and I stand by that, because you say things like "gazing at their screen in admiration" in an insulting fashion, as if those who appreciate a good detailed and bright display somehow have trivial and laughable requirements.
I don't claim that there is a single product that meets these needs, but I do claim that the arguments brought on this product specifically by you and the original author are baseless.
In other words, you're welcome to criticize the product all you want based on your requirements, but don't pass it off as though your snarky analysis is valuable in any objective way.
- brudgers 14y agoI made no claims about the product. I commented upon Apple's branding. I find the way in which Apple brands it's widgets far more interesting than their specifications due to the way in which that branding affects online discourse. For example, your "argument" is centered on specifications of components rather than productivity in a way which parallels Apple's branding - to the point where your "argument" depends upon ignoring computing performance. Objectively, there is nothing wrong with valuing one set of specifications (display resolution) over another (computational benchmarks). But objectively, there is nothing right about it either. Except of course as it applies to an individual case. Pointing out that individual cases are the basis for determining what is better, is expedited by pointing to an absurd example. Perhaps, the one I chose was not absurd enough.