It’s not only unjust; as per the RICO Act, this should come under investigation for potential violations of the law. This, in our view, is racketeering.
Dear author, present your evidence before making inflammatory statements.
If the style is not to your taste, I wouldn't ask you to read the article, but it seems rude to then make a comment about how they didn't defend their assertions when you pretty plainly bailed out of the article immediately before the section where they defend that assertion.
I believe the issue was the expectation that you would present the evidence first and then the conclusions, hence the use of the word 'before'.
Admittedly, I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation, but you're responding to "I expected X before Y" with "you're rude because X was right after Y" which, well, yes it was, but that probably wasn't the point :)
Comments
I have decided not to read this article.
Dear author, present your evidence before making inflammatory statements.
If the style is not to your taste, I wouldn't ask you to read the article, but it seems rude to then make a comment about how they didn't defend their assertions when you pretty plainly bailed out of the article immediately before the section where they defend that assertion.
I believe the issue was the expectation that you would present the evidence first and then the conclusions, hence the use of the word 'before'.
Admittedly, I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation, but you're responding to "I expected X before Y" with "you're rude because X was right after Y" which, well, yes it was, but that probably wasn't the point :)
Sadly, if the parent finished reading the article they wouldn't have found any solid argument whatsoever.