Re:Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars
by grzm on Tuesday February 07, 2017 @01:03AM
(#13587432)
My goal/point was trying to demonstrate how patently wrong the earlier statements were.
The evidence or examples you provide should make that clear. Unless you have very strong irrefutable evidence, I would hesitate making any absolute statement declaring someone wrong. What does it gain you? No one likes to be told outright they're wrong. The goal shouldn't be to score points: it should be to reach common understanding.
If this is something you'd like to cultivate further, you might find the references in my profile useful. I refer to them myself regularly.
Re:Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars
by tomcam on Tuesday February 07, 2017 @12:54AM
(#13587398)
Most cool. Proud of you. grzm said it exactly.
Re:Uber Hires Veteran NASA Engineer to Develop Flying Cars
by grzm on Monday February 06, 2017 @10:35PM
(#13586779)
I commend your desire to improve your posts. That's something that's always on my mind as well.
From my unsolicited, third-party perspective, two things jump out at me.
- You could do without the first sentence entirely.
- The insinuation that the parent is possibly a shill (an Uber employee)
The rest of it is fairly neutral.
Edit: We've hit the end of the reply chain. I see your point about both the opening and closing sentences. Is there any way to say the first one without coming off as hostile? My goal/point was trying to demonstrate how patently wrong the earlier statements were.