3 ms·
"inconsistent and unreasonable person", like "madman" is still stating your disagreement at the lowest intellectual levels. See http://www.paulgraham.com/disagr
by gregwebs 18y ago
"inconsistent and unreasonable person", like "madman" is still stating your disagreement at the lowest intellectual levels. See http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
You need to remove the personal attack ("person") and just point out that the ideas are inconsistent.
Refuting one sentence is useful, but does not refute the central point.
- pingswept 18y agoI agree that I am stating my argument at a relatively low intellectual level (but maybe not "the lowest"), and I also agree with you and PG that in general we ought to avoid personal attacks as a form of disagreement. However, I think you've mistaken my intent. I don't agree or disagree with the article. Honestly, I have only skimmed the article, and I don't plan to read it carefully, because I am convinced that the writing is sloppy, and that makes the article, in my judgment, not worth reading. I would presume you feel differently. I had hoped to spare fellow readers the disappointment that I experienced, clicking on the article, hoping to find insightful commentary on running shoes, but instead finding writing that appeared to me to be unexceptional. It certainly seems this has been ineffective. I don't know; maybe you all loved the article, and I'm the one missing out. I'll stick with the heuristic of "Articles that lead with unreasonable claims are not worth finishing."