If something goes wrong down the road, the writer can crow "I told you so" and strut around like a rooster. If nothing goes wrong, then who remembers some unknown writer in some forgotten rag?
The beauty of these naysayers is that, like a broken clock (or a stuck display ;) ), they're right about the outcome (and not the cause) once in a while by sheer chance.
I could make the exact same argument about any criticism of any random thing, because it does not address the correctness of the criticism at all. If I made this argument against some criticism you fully agree with, you would probably lash out against me for not addressing the issues raised. I haven't even read the article and yet I can safely judge your comment to be completely irrelevant.
I think that's a fair criticism of all of GP's post except the first sentence, "These are all just cheap shots." That single assertion is a meaningful one, albeit one with which I totally disagree.
Comments
These are all just cheap shots.
If something goes wrong down the road, the writer can crow "I told you so" and strut around like a rooster. If nothing goes wrong, then who remembers some unknown writer in some forgotten rag?
The beauty of these naysayers is that, like a broken clock (or a stuck display ;) ), they're right about the outcome (and not the cause) once in a while by sheer chance.
I could make the exact same argument about any criticism of any random thing, because it does not address the correctness of the criticism at all. If I made this argument against some criticism you fully agree with, you would probably lash out against me for not addressing the issues raised. I haven't even read the article and yet I can safely judge your comment to be completely irrelevant.
I think that's a fair criticism of all of GP's post except the first sentence, "These are all just cheap shots." That single assertion is a meaningful one, albeit one with which I totally disagree.