4 ms·
You could have conveyed the non-snark by just omitting your parenthetical. Everything before that is totally valid, but the parenthetical invites the kind of r
by loumf 14y ago
You could have conveyed the non-snark by just omitting your parenthetical. Everything before that is totally valid, but the parenthetical invites the kind of reply that doesn't actually move the conversation in the way I think you intended.
(Edit, adding): Also, when you use "", it's much better if you are actually quoting. If not, you are putting words in their mouth.
- javert 14y agoThanks. This is useful. It got me thinking. If I had just not put the parenthetical, it would make it look like I was "really asking" the question. That would treat the derivation in question as potentially legitimate (it's really not), and also invite serious but non-useful responses. So that leads me to conclude that I just shouldn't have phrased my point as a question in the first place. I could have just stated my point as a statement, not a question.
- mikeash 14y agoThat's pretty much what I was trying to say with, "What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?" I guess you were trying for a rhetorical question, but I think that requires either: 1. The answer to be obvious to everybody, both asker and audience. E.g. "Do we really want to destroy all life?" 2. The question to be a lead-in to a discussion or argument. E.g. "Is it better to have more blue cars available for consumers to buy? I think so, and here's why." You didn't do #2, so it looked like #1, but in context that's horribly dismissive.