Re:New Study Contradicts Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Rule
by Avshalom on Monday July 07, 2014 @08:33AM
(#7998434)
'As a rule, I think'...'I think'
Its a qualifier stating that what ever follows is a personal heuristic not a claim of fact.
Re:New Study Contradicts Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Rule
by PM_Tech on Monday July 07, 2014 @02:02PM
(#8000262)
...how does that change the OP's position?
Re:New Study Contradicts Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Rule
by wpietri on Monday July 07, 2014 @06:46PM
(#8002048)
Why look! More argumentation and drama. From a new, anonymous account. How could I ever have guessed? Oh, maybe like this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Re:New Study Contradicts Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Rule
by PM_Tech on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @01:50PM
(#8005734)
...is your theory that only non-anonymous persons are allowed to disagree? I am not anonymous - you never asked me my name.
Re:New Study Contradicts Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Rule
by wpietri on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @06:38PM
(#8007114)
My heuristic is that non-anonymous persons get more conversational leeway. I'm more willing to invest time in conversations with people who have invested in their identity.
Your current level of argumentative dickishness would probably disqualify you as a useful interlocutor for me regardless of how much you stand behind your words. E.g., the "you never asked me my name" bullshit. So I'm done with you.
I have not increased the drama at all. Someone posted a totally hyperbolic statement. I called them on it. It was upvoted numerous times I suspect because a consensus agrees with me.
It is not intelligent to tear down popular things because they are popular. You could have very well removed Gladwell and added Apple, Microsoft or French wine.
I haven't yelled, have I?
Your protip is baffling. Who is apparently smart? The OP? How have you reached that conclusion? By the possession of a HN account?