Did anyone but me read the actual article? I'm still looking for the "scathing critique" part. Every issue they raise are exactly the same ones raised by posters right here on this board. CR says it and they are the spawn of Satan.
The good doctor has been doing rectal exams again, on himself.
No, you're right. It's not what said, it's what you think I implied without even being aware of it that matters. You should take credit for this brilliant insight before someone else does.
See, the problem is, the CR article included no made up stuff that could see. To the limit of what they said, it was accurate, and none of the issues they raised are new to anyone here. The criticism seems to be about sins of omission rather than commission, and as you've said, the "tone" of the article. Well, if you're concerned about that, then why doesn't Pogue's fawning approach raise similar issues? Surely he doesn't go out of his way to compare every competing product, let alone, objectively. If drift, tone and vibe are important to you, then perhaps you should be less selective in who you criticize.
To be clear, I was comparing Pogue's stuff to Joe Nocera's piece, which I do think contains factual errors, or at least strenuous efforts to make problems out of assets (as in the case of talking as if the iPhone's battery life was a unique liability).
Also, I'm not generally concerned about "tone" so much as put off by reviews that seem to be proceeding from simple dislike of Apple as a company and its users as a class of human being. I find that more objectionable than reviews that proceed from an apparent like of Apple and its products, which even in Pogue's case doesn't really strike me as particularly "fawning."
The two modes are not simply two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned. The one typically involves barely suppressed bitterness, jarring sarcasm, and entirely specious characterizations of motivation, things that for the most part are going to be less palatable than even somewhat excessive enthusiasm (although of course it would be possible to push that to the point of nausea induction). It's not really about fact checking or "the truth", just a preference of mine (although I get that for some reason this strikes you as somehow insupportable).
I guess if I had to choose a pecking order, I'd take dispassionate and accurate first, mildly enthusiastic second, enthusiastic to the point of glossing over problems third, and darkly contemptuous last.
Comments
Yes, you got me. My message is entirely subliminal.
The emphasis is all yours. I want no part of it.
Did anyone but me read the actual article? I'm still looking for the "scathing critique" part. Every issue they raise are exactly the same ones raised by posters right here on this board. CR says it and they are the spawn of Satan.
The good doctor has been doing rectal exams again, on himself.
The emphasis is all yours. I want no part of it.
No, you're right. It's not what said, it's what you think I implied without even being aware of it that matters. You should take credit for this brilliant insight before someone else does.
See, the problem is, the CR article included no made up stuff that could see. To the limit of what they said, it was accurate, and none of the issues they raised are new to anyone here. The criticism seems to be about sins of omission rather than commission, and as you've said, the "tone" of the article. Well, if you're concerned about that, then why doesn't Pogue's fawning approach raise similar issues? Surely he doesn't go out of his way to compare every competing product, let alone, objectively. If drift, tone and vibe are important to you, then perhaps you should be less selective in who you criticize.
To be clear, I was comparing Pogue's stuff to Joe Nocera's piece, which I do think contains factual errors, or at least strenuous efforts to make problems out of assets (as in the case of talking as if the iPhone's battery life was a unique liability).
Also, I'm not generally concerned about "tone" so much as put off by reviews that seem to be proceeding from simple dislike of Apple as a company and its users as a class of human being. I find that more objectionable than reviews that proceed from an apparent like of Apple and its products, which even in Pogue's case doesn't really strike me as particularly "fawning."
The two modes are not simply two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned. The one typically involves barely suppressed bitterness, jarring sarcasm, and entirely specious characterizations of motivation, things that for the most part are going to be less palatable than even somewhat excessive enthusiasm (although of course it would be possible to push that to the point of nausea induction). It's not really about fact checking or "the truth", just a preference of mine (although I get that for some reason this strikes you as somehow insupportable).
I guess if I had to choose a pecking order, I'd take dispassionate and accurate first, mildly enthusiastic second, enthusiastic to the point of glossing over problems third, and darkly contemptuous last.
which after 3months of fighting "plate boogers" returned 2 of them
and bought 2 whirlpools
so they don't know dishwashers either
you still need to talk with others that you know about a product
they have their own agenda it seems
buy apple not bosch