There does seem to be a bit of a skew in interpretation, but what I can determine is this, that while a advise column seems like a good idea, I don't think I would take advise from this guy. His commenters stating that Flayrah's commentators throw out flak and vitrol while they themselves by stating such were doing the same without any sense of irony is telling to his target audience.
It just sounds like the kind of person who can't take anyone questioning his advise or what he has to say or do. However, if someone questions you it's okay to question them with the same (interpreted) pointedness, but when YOU do it, it's not 'evil' or 'hurtful'.
I mean, here's a quote from one of the commenters of that article:
"Ha ha ha, wow, I guess I was right about that website. It's a mean, hateful, critic website in my view often. :/
I'm afraid to see that article because I may see all the hate with low ratings, the bad comments with there forcing opinion crap and other. I'm guessing the problem with that there main so called "open" view had sticky opinions stuck on the top of there head, and refuse to change, and bash anyone who has a new idea, don't know though. :P"
Well then to that commentator you're enslaved by illusion, the article has 5/5 rating. That's not an opinion, that's a fact, get over it.
With that I think our target audiences are different then Papa Bear's. If an advise columnist is willing to let their fans lie to themselves to make himself feel warranted because he's having negative feelings towards some place, then I'd question if his advise is backed by emotion or facts.
There does seem to be a bit of a skew in interpretation, but what I can determine is this, that while a advise column seems like a good idea, I don't think I would take advise from this guy. His commenters stating that Flayrah's commentators throw out flak and vitrol while they themselves by stating such were doing the same without any sense of irony is telling to his target audience.
It just sounds like the kind of person who can't take anyone questioning his advise or what he has to say or do. However, if someone questions you it's okay to question them with the same (interpreted) pointedness, but when YOU do it, it's not 'evil' or 'hurtful'.
I mean, here's a quote from one of the commenters of that article:
"Ha ha ha, wow, I guess I was right about that website. It's a mean, hateful, critic website in my view often. :/
I'm afraid to see that article because I may see all the hate with low ratings, the bad comments with there forcing opinion crap and other. I'm guessing the problem with that there main so called "open" view had sticky opinions stuck on the top of there head, and refuse to change, and bash anyone who has a new idea, don't know though. :P"
Well then to that commentator you're enslaved by illusion, the article has 5/5 rating. That's not an opinion, that's a fact, get over it.
With that I think our target audiences are different then Papa Bear's. If an advise columnist is willing to let their fans lie to themselves to make himself feel warranted because he's having negative feelings towards some place, then I'd question if his advise is backed by emotion or facts.