I think on the internet you have to separate the message from the delivery regardless of the source, this author seems to be making a pretty good effort at making that harder.
That said, I can see the humor in answering a post with a very provocative title in an even more provocative way.
It's just that I think that delivering the message is more important than the 'lol' factor, and maybe in this case the message is important enough that it would have been better served by some more moderate language.
Sure, we're all adults and so on, I'm no shrinking violet myself but I would think twice before writing like that. It's simply not conducive to getting your point across.
And, that's a fact, the points are pretty good. Even if Jason Frieds original article gets misrepresented a bit.
Jason brought that on himself by making his point in a vacuum, after all he had no idea of the backstory, so he shouldn't have used it as the main point of support for his argument.
The trouble now is that Jasons original argument is threatened to be lost because of that, and that's a pity because it too had merit.
That said, I can see the humor in answering a post with a very provocative title in an even more provocative way.
It's just that I think that delivering the message is more important than the 'lol' factor, and maybe in this case the message is important enough that it would have been better served by some more moderate language.
Sure, we're all adults and so on, I'm no shrinking violet myself but I would think twice before writing like that. It's simply not conducive to getting your point across.
And, that's a fact, the points are pretty good. Even if Jason Frieds original article gets misrepresented a bit.
Jason brought that on himself by making his point in a vacuum, after all he had no idea of the backstory, so he shouldn't have used it as the main point of support for his argument.
The trouble now is that Jasons original argument is threatened to be lost because of that, and that's a pity because it too had merit.