Ah okay, I just wanted to makes sure it wasn't something more substantial. ( upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg huh )
There are different ways of saying that. The way you said it isn't awful, but it is adversarial.
So pompousness about how "great minds" should have "better things" to do than care about politics is okay, injecting some reality into that isn't? If you don't notice such self-congratulary fluff, of course you'll find a response to it "weirdly aggressive and combative". If you don't consider the initial post adversarial, then of course my response must seem weird to you.
It's not that I want to pick on Bootstrap, that was just one example of a lot I could have made. The very concept of making a CSS framework might be a "new idea", the very first implementation of that idea is already kinda pedestrian, but further releases, or the 50th CSS framework? Not new, not intellectually stimulating. And you know what? I don't usually complain about any of that, ever, much less making submissions about it; until someone says that having like 5-10% politics is just too much, that "great minds" can do better. Then I mention it, because the disconnect is just too glaring to ignore.
You then have a weirdly aggressive paragraph about people patting themselves on the back while delivering toys to politicians, which misses the point that many people don't deliver those toys to politicians, they specifically opted-out of military or defence work.
Which in turn misses the point that many people did NOT opt out, which is why we're talking about this now.
Your next post, asking people to put their mouths where their downvotes are, seems to indicate that you don't think the problem is with your posts, but with the idiots who don't understand you and who just downvote rather than discussing.
Oh, so it's posts now, and you calling other people idiots on my behalf makes my posts "weirdly aggressive"? Good thing I don't get to act as some kind of scapegoat. And how is just downvoting instead of discussing not the equivalent of tone? How is it not way below that even? None of this adds up.
But sure, I don't eat chalk, I don't say "great job!" when I see a turd, and I don't care about the downvotes themselves; I just prefer their reasons mirrored into the medium of text where they are actually visible and can be responded to.
Still not a single word on what a "great mind" is, and what "better things" they have to discuss. Oh well.
Ah okay, I just wanted to makes sure it wasn't something more substantial. ( upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg huh )
There are different ways of saying that. The way you said it isn't awful, but it is adversarial.
So pompousness about how "great minds" should have "better things" to do than care about politics is okay, injecting some reality into that isn't? If you don't notice such self-congratulary fluff, of course you'll find a response to it "weirdly aggressive and combative". If you don't consider the initial post adversarial, then of course my response must seem weird to you.
It's not that I want to pick on Bootstrap, that was just one example of a lot I could have made. The very concept of making a CSS framework might be a "new idea", the very first implementation of that idea is already kinda pedestrian, but further releases, or the 50th CSS framework? Not new, not intellectually stimulating. And you know what? I don't usually complain about any of that, ever, much less making submissions about it; until someone says that having like 5-10% politics is just too much, that "great minds" can do better. Then I mention it, because the disconnect is just too glaring to ignore.
You then have a weirdly aggressive paragraph about people patting themselves on the back while delivering toys to politicians, which misses the point that many people don't deliver those toys to politicians, they specifically opted-out of military or defence work.
Which in turn misses the point that many people did NOT opt out, which is why we're talking about this now.
Your next post, asking people to put their mouths where their downvotes are, seems to indicate that you don't think the problem is with your posts, but with the idiots who don't understand you and who just downvote rather than discussing.
Oh, so it's posts now, and you calling other people idiots on my behalf makes my posts "weirdly aggressive"? Good thing I don't get to act as some kind of scapegoat. And how is just downvoting instead of discussing not the equivalent of tone? How is it not way below that even? None of this adds up.
But sure, I don't eat chalk, I don't say "great job!" when I see a turd, and I don't care about the downvotes themselves; I just prefer their reasons mirrored into the medium of text where they are actually visible and can be responded to.
Still not a single word on what a "great mind" is, and what "better things" they have to discuss. Oh well.