|
|
|
|
|
by esperent
526 days ago
|
|
I didn't imply that the article said those exact words, I was restating the article's subtext. I should have used italics rather than quotes though, my bad. > You're building a strawman. Given the large number of people in this thread who got the same impression from the article as me, I don't think so. I think this is the actual subtext of the article, stated simply. > There isn't much the author can do to be less prescriptive, besides shutting up. Actually there's a huge amount they could do to be less prescriptive, such as using phrases like here's what I'm gonna do but you can make up your own mind. |
|
People count doesn't make sound logic. You will find large numbers of people believing the weirdest things, if you're so inclined.
> I think this is the actual subtext of the article, stated simply.
You used the sentence "you are not allowed". How do you think the blog owner will coerce you if you do not comply with his order ?
> Actually there's a huge amount they could do to be less prescriptive, such as using phrases like here's what I'm gonna do but you can make up your own mind.
Would you describe your own reply on HN as telling people what they're allowed to do or not to do?