[run4_too]

Agreed and disagreed.

It's not healthy to be permanently offended, but presenting an idea and being told that it isn't good (by someone presenting no alternative) or that you have ulterior motives (by readers of a website directed to startups of all things) isn't something someone should need to deal with.

[derefr]

> presenting an idea and being told that it isn't good (by someone presenting no alternative) ... isn't something someone should need to deal with.

I might be visualizing a different conversational domain than you are, but I'm not sure about this.

For example, when you build a bridge, there's a clear, objective line of quality somewhere above "the bridge stays standing." If I know enough about physics to see that your bridge won't stand, that doesn't mean that I also know enough about architecture to propose my own bridge -- but it doesn't have to; the knowledge that design X is fatally flawed is useful in its own right.

[run4_too]

>For example, when you build a bridge, there's a clear, objective line of quality somewhere above

She isn't building a bridge, she's writing a story for children. The failure point is that nobody likes her story and therefore it doesn't sell. That's the absolute worst thing that can happen. Not a single child will be so critically scarred from her story that they never learn programming. Yet it may resonate for some.

There is no point to critique when the downside is so unbelievably inconsequential and the plus side is beneficial to a person, other than simply being an ass.

[derefr]

But you made a general argument (no one should ever have to deal with negative feedback without a proposed alternative), not one specific to this case. And in the general case, it's wrong. I agree completely that it's right in this specific case -- but you were rhetorically over-reaching.