I don't know Nicole, nor do I work for or with the NYT, but attacking her parenting because you disagree with the article does not seem reasonable.
By all means, make your point about the headline and story. Nicole is, presumably, an adult. But so are Andreessen Horowitz, and comparing them to a vulnerable child is not particularly convincing.
I am attacking (if you want to call it that) the tone of the article and the angle she choose to take. She could have just as easily said "while some might say that they missed $200 million, others are impressed with the way they made what they believed to be an honorable decision".
Of course in the end it's about selling newspapers or page views so she was just doing her job.
Speculating that the author would be a bad parent, and now additionally speculating she's a page-view whore, is completely orthogonal to your main point about the tone of the article. It's a gratuitous attack that flies in the face of this specific community guideline: "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation"
Just because this is a journalist you are unlikely to meet doesn't mean you should so cavalierly impugn her morals. You can criticize an article without making it into an attack on the author.
How would you feel if I replied to one of your comments with a sarcastic, "Gee, you'll sure make a GREAT parent some day"?
Comments
I don't know Nicole, nor do I work for or with the NYT, but attacking her parenting because you disagree with the article does not seem reasonable.
By all means, make your point about the headline and story. Nicole is, presumably, an adult. But so are Andreessen Horowitz, and comparing them to a vulnerable child is not particularly convincing.
I am attacking (if you want to call it that) the tone of the article and the angle she choose to take. She could have just as easily said "while some might say that they missed $200 million, others are impressed with the way they made what they believed to be an honorable decision".
Of course in the end it's about selling newspapers or page views so she was just doing her job.
Speculating that the author would be a bad parent, and now additionally speculating she's a page-view whore, is completely orthogonal to your main point about the tone of the article. It's a gratuitous attack that flies in the face of this specific community guideline: "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation"
Just because this is a journalist you are unlikely to meet doesn't mean you should so cavalierly impugn her morals. You can criticize an article without making it into an attack on the author.
How would you feel if I replied to one of your comments with a sarcastic, "Gee, you'll sure make a GREAT parent some day"?