[withinboredom]

The first is better, IMHO. No need to be so dry and boring in your second example. Also, in the first example, I know the reviewer is completely against my approach. I need some proper ammo to rebut with, or go back to the drawing board. In the second example, it could easily turn into a multi-day back-and-forth until one of us gives up.

[pests]

Ah yes, the best way to enforce technology decisions is by insults and hostility.

[withinboredom]

I reread it and didn’t see a single personal insult. Can you point them out?

[falcor84]

With Linux and git being probably the most widely adopted open source software projects ever, it would be a valid argument that Linus's approach is by historical proof "the best way".

[endisneigh]

This is a logical fallacy

[falcor84]

Which fallacy?

[endisneigh]

Selection bias

[withinboredom]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that isn't a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is "A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth."[1] "Selection bias" isn't a recognized logical fallacy, in logical reasoning. "Selection bias" is a statistical bias in sampled data.

They put forth a premise, "With Linux and git being probably the most widely adopted open source software projects ever"

Then an inference, "Linus's approach is historical proof"

And a conclusion, "is the best way [to review code]".

Assuming we can accept the premise as true, you're left to attack the inference (whether or not Linus's approach is historical proof). You may disagree with the conclusion, but calling out a logical argument as a logical fallacy, and using that to dismiss the conclusion, is itself, a logical fallacy called a "fallacy fallacy"[2]

[1]: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

[2]: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/fallacy-fallacy.html

[endisneigh]

I couldn’t disagree more. It’s simply a fact that the needless superlatives are verbose and distract from the point.

[GrinningFool]

I suggest: "I disagree. The needless superlatives distract from the point."

It conveys the same message without needless verbosity.

[endisneigh]

True

[withinboredom]

Congrats!? It’d be better if you could explain why… so there could be a discussion.

[endisneigh]

You’ve already made the point, otherwise you would’ve said:

“Jesus Christ, if you could just explain why then we could have a fucking discussion, yeah?”

Intuitively you already understand the point I am making :)

[withinboredom]

I attack with laughter and sarcasm. Other people have different coping mechanisms. Mine just happens to be socially acceptable atm. It wasn’t always, such as in school where I was accused of not taking things seriously.

[mcpackieh]

His derisive "Congrats!?" would already be in violation of modern American corporate communication guidelines and policies. That sarcastic praise made me feel belittled. The exclamation mark made me feel threatened and unsafe. Failing to coddle me is aggression.