5 ms·

That line was a bit juvenile, granted. The other comment wasn't really nitpicking. The commenter believed that Gaga has genuine musical ability, and the author

by jdn 13y ago

That line was a bit juvenile, granted. The other comment wasn't really nitpicking. The commenter believed that Gaga has genuine musical ability, and the author wanted to make it clear that it was that classical training that made her the target of his blog. I don't want to misinterprete your meaning here, but are you trying to suggest the author would only react angrily to a female/feminist commentator?

lclarkmichalek 13y ago
Not to a female commentator (I've no idea if the commentator was female in this case). More to a comment that deals with issues that are usually associated with feminism. And I wouldn't use the word only; In a much more hostile manner than the response to an average nitpick? Yes, that sums it up. The Gaga comment was nitpicking; off topic and trivial. The comment on casual sexism was also. Yet only one of them actually had their issue addressed.
- jdn 13y ago
  The Gaga nitpicking wasn't completely off topic though. The selection of Gaga as the target was chosen with the express purpose of demonstrating a point; Gaga has classical training, yet still produces what most (at least the author) consider to be trash. This mirrors his comment on the poor design of modern languages versus the APL languages, and a commentator didn't get this link so he spelled it out for them. On the other hand, the casual sexism call was completely off topic.
- scottlocklin 13y ago
  The one on lady Gaga had a point which relates to the content of my post. It was not only relevant, but interesting, as was his subsequent comment on Alcubierre drives, which is a subject for a forthcoming post already taking shape. The dork who was attempting to "correct" my language was not interesting, and totalitarian numskulls like that deserve nothing but whatever blistering scorn I can muster at that particular moment. The fact that this is even "a thing" with 30-odd comments about it is a sad commentary on the illness which afflicts modern civilization. If this isn't clear: I don't like people with such "refined" sensibilities, and they are invited to never, ever read my blog. If you're that sensitive, you belong by yourself in a yurt, where nobody's language or opinions will bother you. Personally, I've never met an actual programmer of any race, gender or creed who actually is that sensitive. People that sensitive are mentally ill, and don't have jobs. I've met plenty of power-mad Cotton Mather sickos who think they have the right to police the words and opinions of others though. The fact that people think witch hunts over a fscking word are OK; that is not OK.

by jdn 13y ago

lclarkmichalek 13y ago

Not to a female commentator (I've no idea if the commentator was female in this case). More to a comment that deals with issues that are usually associated with feminism. And I wouldn't use the word only; In a much more hostile manner than the response to an average nitpick? Yes, that sums it up. The Gaga comment was nitpicking; off topic and trivial. The comment on casual sexism was also. Yet only one of them actually had their issue addressed.

jdn 13y ago
The Gaga nitpicking wasn't completely off topic though. The selection of Gaga as the target was chosen with the express purpose of demonstrating a point; Gaga has classical training, yet still produces what most (at least the author) consider to be trash. This mirrors his comment on the poor design of modern languages versus the APL languages, and a commentator didn't get this link so he spelled it out for them. On the other hand, the casual sexism call was completely off topic.
scottlocklin 13y ago
The one on lady Gaga had a point which relates to the content of my post. It was not only relevant, but interesting, as was his subsequent comment on Alcubierre drives, which is a subject for a forthcoming post already taking shape. The dork who was attempting to "correct" my language was not interesting, and totalitarian numskulls like that deserve nothing but whatever blistering scorn I can muster at that particular moment. The fact that this is even "a thing" with 30-odd comments about it is a sad commentary on the illness which afflicts modern civilization. If this isn't clear: I don't like people with such "refined" sensibilities, and they are invited to never, ever read my blog. If you're that sensitive, you belong by yourself in a yurt, where nobody's language or opinions will bother you. Personally, I've never met an actual programmer of any race, gender or creed who actually is that sensitive. People that sensitive are mentally ill, and don't have jobs. I've met plenty of power-mad Cotton Mather sickos who think they have the right to police the words and opinions of others though. The fact that people think witch hunts over a fscking word are OK; that is not OK.