Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I was referring to his second main point.


sort by: page size:

He does actually refer to this, but he could be more explicit on point (2) rather than referring to it obliquely.

It's his second bullet point

He explained in his second sentence

I'm taking issue with his first sentence, not second.

He addresses this point directly.

He mentioned several points, all different from what you said

I'm going by memory, but I'm pretty sure he made that point (that I'm paraphrasing, of course). Anyone else here his talk that would care to comment?

He didn't summarize, he responded to a few points.

It clarifies the point he's making. It's not the point itself.

I think he explained what he meant by the previous paragraph.

I think he was simplifying to make a point.

He didn't miss the point. He says exactly that later in the article. He just expands on the distinction a bit is all.

That's the point he's making, you read it wrong. It's the second way.

What point did you think he was trying to make?

I think he makes a really reticulate point.

OK but he quoted the expressiveness in his reply which I thought meant that was the point he was addressing.

He touches on those points in his final paragraph.

That's fair, I was making some assumptions when making that statement. Maybe a better point to make would be that he was overly prioritizing one aspect over others.

I don't think he missed the point. He gave a different perspective on how the attitude expressed in the manifesto can help someone grow in skill impressively.
next

Legal | privacy