Okay, first point, you know what, I'm sure Charles basic legal knowledge is lacking. But the thing is, as they have pointed out, this isn't an article about law. So, who fucking cares?
Second point, there is one link to the guy in the article. The article does not rely on this person. Once again, who fucking cares? Furthermore, your inability to understand that the difference between a link for clarity and a primary source tells me that you complaining about "legal liability" is probably based on a less than complete understanding of the concepts yourself, because you sure as fuck don't understand journalism, but are comfortable confidently mouthing off about it.
You don't seem to understand these are not valid areas of critique of this article. And the thing of it is, holy shit, you managed to find, not one, but two areas of attack that don't matter in an article that is riddled with major problems! Holy crap, the article is rated 2.1 out of 29 ratings. That's not good! I'm sure a lot of those ratings are you and your anonymous crowd, but this is not an article that went over well! Trying not to put words in anyone's mouth, but my take on the general consensus from the "usual failures" is a mixture of "Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater." and "The ends do not justify the means in this case."
And, personally, I didn't even make it that far! It's just not a very well written piece! Basically, I didn't really even get the point until I started gleaning it secondhand from Chipotle's and Sonious's comments. (Which, by the way, may not help defend myself from earlier attacks on my reading comprehension, or lack thereof, but whatever.) I mean, the headline is a question, and I don't feel that question is ever adequately answered by the piece. And I've already talked about the stupid rat story; oh my god, that was a poor decision. I mean, none of the regular contributors really, myself included, have any right to complain about a piece being an unstructured, rambling, vague personal essay, but on the other hand, well, we know of what we speak!
And nobody here's called you a Nazi, dude! Now, it's quite possible you are some kind of right winger, and that's what's got you upset. Charles is obviously left wing (even I got that), so it does make a certain amount of sense this article would rub someone of that political spectrum the wrong way. But I just don't think that's what's going on. This just feels like an Internet slapfight, really. And, I mean, if there's one thing I know, it's fucking Internet slapfights. I don't know who started it, don't really care. But this article is about to celebrate it's one month anniversary, and you really are starting to sound like a broken record. Especially seeing as how Charles has pretty much not responded to you at all, I mean, aren't you getting a little bored at this point?
What we have accused you of, if not being a Nazi, is being a giant fucking asshole. (Also, stupid.) Admittedly, "being a Nazi" is a subset of "being a giant fucking asshole" (also, "stupid"), sure, but they aren't completely synonymous.
Now, that kind of brings up the real question, which is, what's the endgame here? Do you have a goal? Are you trying to get the article removed? Like, that would really hurt Charles' feelings, so that's the plan? Well, sorry, you should probably move on with your life, there. That's just not how Flayrah rolls. Bad articles are just as permanent as the good ones. You wasted a month of your life; it sucks, but let's not do the "sunk cost fallacy" thing and keep trying. Please. For the love of God. I'm begging you. (Also, uh, randomly attacking the one guy who has the ability to actually do what you want, when he wasn't part of the fight, uh, not good strategy.)
However, if you're slapfighting for the sake of slapfighting, well, I can't really say much, there. God go with you, I suppose. And, good news, we probably won't stop you, no matter how big of an asshole you guys get to be, either collectively or if it's just you, the one anon, now. That's also just not how Flayrah rolls. But, unsolicited advice from someone you probably don't like right now (who doesn't love unsolicited advice from someone you probably don't like right now?), maybe use this time to work on your material a bit. Because it's a little stale.
Okay, first point, you know what, I'm sure Charles basic legal knowledge is lacking. But the thing is, as they have pointed out, this isn't an article about law. So, who fucking cares?
Second point, there is one link to the guy in the article. The article does not rely on this person. Once again, who fucking cares? Furthermore, your inability to understand that the difference between a link for clarity and a primary source tells me that you complaining about "legal liability" is probably based on a less than complete understanding of the concepts yourself, because you sure as fuck don't understand journalism, but are comfortable confidently mouthing off about it.
You don't seem to understand these are not valid areas of critique of this article. And the thing of it is, holy shit, you managed to find, not one, but two areas of attack that don't matter in an article that is riddled with major problems! Holy crap, the article is rated 2.1 out of 29 ratings. That's not good! I'm sure a lot of those ratings are you and your anonymous crowd, but this is not an article that went over well! Trying not to put words in anyone's mouth, but my take on the general consensus from the "usual failures" is a mixture of "Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater." and "The ends do not justify the means in this case."
And, personally, I didn't even make it that far! It's just not a very well written piece! Basically, I didn't really even get the point until I started gleaning it secondhand from Chipotle's and Sonious's comments. (Which, by the way, may not help defend myself from earlier attacks on my reading comprehension, or lack thereof, but whatever.) I mean, the headline is a question, and I don't feel that question is ever adequately answered by the piece. And I've already talked about the stupid rat story; oh my god, that was a poor decision. I mean, none of the regular contributors really, myself included, have any right to complain about a piece being an unstructured, rambling, vague personal essay, but on the other hand, well, we know of what we speak!
And nobody here's called you a Nazi, dude! Now, it's quite possible you are some kind of right winger, and that's what's got you upset. Charles is obviously left wing (even I got that), so it does make a certain amount of sense this article would rub someone of that political spectrum the wrong way. But I just don't think that's what's going on. This just feels like an Internet slapfight, really. And, I mean, if there's one thing I know, it's fucking Internet slapfights. I don't know who started it, don't really care. But this article is about to celebrate it's one month anniversary, and you really are starting to sound like a broken record. Especially seeing as how Charles has pretty much not responded to you at all, I mean, aren't you getting a little bored at this point?
What we have accused you of, if not being a Nazi, is being a giant fucking asshole. (Also, stupid.) Admittedly, "being a Nazi" is a subset of "being a giant fucking asshole" (also, "stupid"), sure, but they aren't completely synonymous.
Now, that kind of brings up the real question, which is, what's the endgame here? Do you have a goal? Are you trying to get the article removed? Like, that would really hurt Charles' feelings, so that's the plan? Well, sorry, you should probably move on with your life, there. That's just not how Flayrah rolls. Bad articles are just as permanent as the good ones. You wasted a month of your life; it sucks, but let's not do the "sunk cost fallacy" thing and keep trying. Please. For the love of God. I'm begging you. (Also, uh, randomly attacking the one guy who has the ability to actually do what you want, when he wasn't part of the fight, uh, not good strategy.)
However, if you're slapfighting for the sake of slapfighting, well, I can't really say much, there. God go with you, I suppose. And, good news, we probably won't stop you, no matter how big of an asshole you guys get to be, either collectively or if it's just you, the one anon, now. That's also just not how Flayrah rolls. But, unsolicited advice from someone you probably don't like right now (who doesn't love unsolicited advice from someone you probably don't like right now?), maybe use this time to work on your material a bit. Because it's a little stale.
Okay, love and kisses! Bye!