You put just 23 lines and some amount of research into purely shitting on the submitter's choice of title. Did that do anything to help your obvious disappointment?
"purely shitting on the submitter's choice of title."
It's the title of the article. It could also have been re-written by the admin's even if the submitter had chosen a different title (which no doubt would have resulted in less points).
Your comment smacks of "look what you waste your time on" in a belittling way. Perhaps I type fast, work fast and I'm not lazy and would prefer to back up the point I am making if I decide to make a point about something.
You're verbosely bitching that the article you got didn't live up to your expectations salted with the inference that the submitter was somehow whoringly complicit in your perceived deception.
Re-read what I said because the submitter was not "whoringly complicit" (I like your creative use of language by the way I'll give you an upvote for that.)
Comments
"Silicon Valley's Early Days"?
"Finally Surface".
What an unimpressive group of photos.
In reverse order here are the dates. Only two of Steve I think there were more of Adobe:
1998
1990
1997
1994
1988
1989
1987
1988
1993
1988
1991
1992
1986
1987
1986 s
1992
1986
1988 s
That title would make you think this is some significant find and centered around Steve and the Valley.
Honestly, I did expect a bit more, but damn...
You put just 23 lines and some amount of research into purely shitting on the submitter's choice of title. Did that do anything to help your obvious disappointment?
"purely shitting on the submitter's choice of title."
It's the title of the article. It could also have been re-written by the admin's even if the submitter had chosen a different title (which no doubt would have resulted in less points).
Your comment smacks of "look what you waste your time on" in a belittling way. Perhaps I type fast, work fast and I'm not lazy and would prefer to back up the point I am making if I decide to make a point about something.
You don't have a point, just an opinion.
You're verbosely bitching that the article you got didn't live up to your expectations salted with the inference that the submitter was somehow whoringly complicit in your perceived deception.
"You're verbosely bitching"
<CR's> are not verbosity.
Re-read what I said because the submitter was not "whoringly complicit" (I like your creative use of language by the way I'll give you an upvote for that.)