[jessedhillon]

Not really. The implied point is that DHH has an obligation to explain not only why a company should consider his radical changes. But also, because of the magnitude of the changes he proposes, he has an obligation to explain seriously why a company shouldn't. Otherwise, it's just cheerleading.

I was calling out that he failed to do the latter, and my obligation is to explain why a company might not want to, or be able to, implement those changes.

The fact is that I'm not wrong about him glancing over an important part of his proposal. If you write an article advocating companies undergo radical shifts in their organizational structures, then as someone who is regarded as an informed commenter, you have an obligation to tell people the pitfalls of such a large change. Again, when you don't do that, it's called cheerleading.

He didn't include any discussion of the downsides, or the upsides of hierarchical organization, so I'm not wrong. I should have used a more tactful phrase than "lip-service," however: it's more loaded -- perhaps even derogatory -- than I intended.

[j_baker]

I wasn't trying to say that you were being disrespectful. I was just saying that the way I interpreted it was logically inconsistent. It came off that you were saying "DHH isn't admitting that there might be a downside to his plan. He needs to provide a balanced argument. Oh, and by the way he's completely wrong about everything too."

Whereas after reading this post (and rereading the last one), it sounds like you might have meant to say "DHH isn't admitting that there might be a downside to his plan. He needs to provide a balanced argument. For example, here's one potential hole that I see" which is a reasonable thing to say. Remember, we humans are dumb animals who are prone to completely misinterpreting your argument. Sometimes you have to beat a dead horse to make your point. :-)

[jessedhillon]

It's all good; I'm glad we came to an understanding. Thanks for the feedback and perspective.