3 ms·

> Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love? Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's

by ebbv 14y ago

> Does the article have to have a point for us to talk about some cool technology that we all love? Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition. > What's the point of your post? That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site. > What's wrong with viewing tech competitors as sports teams? It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Maybe for a period of time there will be one company that keeps doing that perfectly, but you should continue to examine the competition and give them a fair shake. Unlike sports teams. That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here.

WayneDB 14y ago
> Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition. That's one definition of discussion. Here's one for talking - "Verb. Speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings." The article made many points. However, maybe next time they should notify you so you can judge them first. > > That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site. Well your honor, it seems like the other root commenters on this post were able to find something to talk about from the article. I wouldn't call it spam. As a matter of fact, I learned something new while reading it. I won't bother telling you what it is because you'd probably attack me with more of your vitriol. > > It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Should? According to you. I hold the view that people should do what they want within reason. You however seem to want to censor anything that you don't agree with. > > That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here. You sound like a know it all asshole bully who got offended because someone stepped on his toe. I can't believe I had to call you out here.

by ebbv 14y ago

WayneDB 14y ago

> Yes there needs to be a point to have a discussion. That's kind of the definition. That's one definition of discussion. Here's one for talking - "Verb. Speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings." The article made many points. However, maybe next time they should notify you so you can judge them first. > > That this post was pointless spam. And further that the OP should be banned for being a shill for a poor quality site. Well your honor, it seems like the other root commenters on this post were able to find something to talk about from the article. I wouldn't call it spam. As a matter of fact, I learned something new while reading it. I won't bother telling you what it is because you'd probably attack me with more of your vitriol. > > It's childish and counter-productive. You should not have loyalty to a company based purely on its brand (like a sports team), you should choose products based on what suits your needs and tastes best. Should? According to you. I hold the view that people should do what they want within reason. You however seem to want to censor anything that you don't agree with. > > That should be pretty obvious. I can't believe I had to explain it on here. You sound like a know it all asshole bully who got offended because someone stepped on his toe. I can't believe I had to call you out here.