Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 00:54 UTC
Google This tweet from Tom Warren made me smile. So, it's 2012 and tablets are finally able to do what the Amiga did in 1985. Seems like a bit of a stretch to be excited about that, right? Sure, until I caught myself getting excited - only a bit, but still - by this piece of news. Update: removed me being an annoyed child.
Thread beginning with comment 529632
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Random idea
by flake on Sat 4th Aug 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Random idea"
flake
Member since:
2012-08-04

We did read the entire article. We just didn't read every link. As I said before, if every person read every link in every (for example) Wikipedia article they read, they would never leave their computers.

It's not like you would have had to spend three paragraphs explaining something, it would have taken but seven words: "... tweet about multi-tasking on the Surface tablet ..."

Would you expect to have to read every source cited in an academic paper just to understand the paper itself? No. If you wanted more detail and explanation and data on the paper, you would dig into the sources. This is no different when writing on a blog or a news site.

Your condescending attitude is getting a bit offensive.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Random idea
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 11:11 in reply to "RE[8]: Random idea"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

We did read the entire article. We just didn't read every link.


That's fine - just don't blame that on me. If you misunderstood what was going on in this case, the proper response is: "Oh, I misunderstood because *I* didn't read the links. Could you elaborate on this please, next time? Thanks!"

You don't do as the original poster did and just launch an all-out attack.

Comparing this to an academic paper is a bit silly, by the way. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but that's like comparing a toddler's doodle of a house to the Mona Lisa.

Edited 2012-08-04 11:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Random idea
by flake on Sat 4th Aug 2012 11:21 in reply to "RE[9]: Random idea"
flake Member since:
2012-08-04

"We did read the entire article. We just didn't read every link.


That's fine - just don't blame that on me. If you misunderstood what was going on in this case, the proper response is: "Oh, I misunderstood because *I* didn't read the links. Could you elaborate on this please, next time? Thanks!"

You don't do as the original poster did and just launch an all-out attack.
"

I wouldn't call the OP's post an all-out attack, though he did seem to relish pointing out flaws a bit too much. For the record, I've been a lurker here for years. I only registered today because I thought the responses you and Morgan posted were dickish and condescending to an extreme. Of all the interesting, enraging and though-provoking things that have been posted over the years, the only thing that drove me to respond was the way you handled an obvious troll. Please keep that in mind.

Comparing this to an academic paper is a bit silly, by the way. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but that's like comparing a toddler's doodle of a house to the Mona Lisa.


Only comparing formats, not content. The medium is the message, my friend ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Random idea
by tupp on Sat 4th Aug 2012 18:07 in reply to "RE[8]: Random idea"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

We did read the entire article. We just didn't read every link.

Please go to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bZKEhgieoc

Reply Parent Score: 3