I don't appreciate this personal attack. You know nothing about me, you know nothing about who and what I endorse. You simply conclude that because I refer to work by a person you dislike, I am also a person you dislike, and therefore I'm worthy of being yelled at. The world isn't this black and white.
My linking to an article from 2007 does not mean I stand behind everything its author ever said. It's a good article. It does not suddenly become a bad article just because the author has gone batshit crazy a decade later.
Do you have any references that support the level of invective you are displaying? I feel you are projecting a great deal of ill will on the original author that I, personally, didn't feel or see.
Very cool post, in regards to the people clicking on the link and then bashing the author, it would be nice if you could bring some arguments to your disliking/bashing.
Sure, I agree with all that. But you're dismissing the parent poster based on his comment history, while castigating him for dismissing your link based on the author's lawsuit history. That seems a little inconsistent to me, is all I'm saying.
Personally, I think a history of suing one's critics does open one's subsequent work up to significantly increased skepticism from the community, because it's a strong signal that something's off. There's some norm-breaking going on. I wish I could read this article but it seems like it's behind a paywall.
I'm downvoting you for implying without evidence that the author is responsible for a backlash against you. You are not contributing anything to discussion.
Stating my opinion about the author's opinion isn't slander. Take it easy. And there's no reason to compare the author and me. We're talking about the opinion here, not about who holds it.
I'm not personally attacking the author, I'm attacking his writing. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'd argue any implied personal attacks in my comment are far milder than those in Raymond's post.
Curious question. Why is this a personal attack? Wasn't he just bringing attention to the author who may have some historical relevance and that would bring light their bias?
> I think this is undeserved and perhaps toxic (especially coming from someone who wrote a competing work).
He started writing a competing work several years after starting to "bash" LYAH. One of the reasons he started writing his own book is exactly because he doesn't think LYAH is particularly good.
If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things.
Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.
Yes, the well known unforgivable crime of referencing that a publication you do not like exists. I think this is a pretty good basis for upending someone's career.
My linking to an article from 2007 does not mean I stand behind everything its author ever said. It's a good article. It does not suddenly become a bad article just because the author has gone batshit crazy a decade later.
Please try to assume good faith.
reply