wow, this is the best comment i've seen on /. in forever.

>>No, you're smart, about some things, I think. You seem to know your way around electronics, for example. You're terribly dumb about argument and logic, though. This is a common problem for technical people: they think because they are smart at some things, that this intelligence carries over. It doesn't.

take it back!

>>You still think you have a point, for example, even though it's clear you do not. But at least you wised up and stopped trying to talk about what I've published.

i'm going to keep pulling this string. say "ALL" again :)

>>I've repeatedly pointed out the fact that you claimed ALL makers SHOULD learn Chinese, and you've refused to retract that claim, and you've repeatedly and directly argued in support of that claim. To shrug it off as just a headline is dishonest. Either directly retract the claim, or it stands. That's how it works.

did you read past the headline? did you read the article? ...**yes, I think a lot of us are going to find speaking, reading, and writing the language of the soon-to-be biggest economy in the world and, who makes almost everything, is a good idea. It’s something to consider learning, starting now, particularly for makers, especially the ones who run maker businesses.**

"good idea, something to consider" - see those words. you need to read past a headline on slashdot to get to them. now that it's settled.

based on your name calling, i hearby ask you to retract your statement! you said "I mean honestly ... this guy is smart, and he says it's going to take him more than two years of ALL his free time, and a total of about 5 years, to become fluent."

obviously you do not agree with yourself, retract it!

>>It's amazing that you don't realize that everything you're attacking me for in this regard, necessarily also applies to you. It's not like you're not writing as much as I am, and throwing around at least as many insults; worse, for you, I'm the one trying to focus on the actual argument, and you're the one continually engaging in ad hominem by trying to compare whom I know, what I've written, etc.

i think this is a blast, you're completely bonkers. this is like a fun toy that never runs out of batteries. i pull the string and you keep saying "ALL". i pull the string now.

>>Look, I know you're very slow-witted, but I already explained this. Try to keep up. I'll say it again: it is logically irrelevant. I won't mention them because it literally doesn't matter to the argument, and it debases it. Whom I know doesn't matter, and what I've done doesn't matter, to my case, which is built on fundamental logical principles, as outlined in my example with the sets. If you could explain to me how any of those things could matter to my case, I would gladly provide a list. But I don't think you'll be able to do it.

you can't list anything because they only exist in your head, just list *any* of them already :)

>>Honestly, in truth, I cannot remember them all. There's been many, and it's been a long time. In addition to the two books I've co-authored, there's been maybe several newspapers and tech magazines ... and that's not even including the online publications, like Slashdot and oreilly.com. And I've turned down at least twice as many as I've written for, including an offer to write a book for O'Reilly, many moons ago.

ok, again - be specific - post a link to the books you've co-authored! ISBNS please!

>>I have won several awards for writing and news, including an award -- sponsored by O'Reilly, with a cash prize, no less -- for a news web site I ran. I don't see how awards mean anything at all, though. It just means one or more people at one time thought they should recognize you for something. That's pretty boring to me, and if I had a Pulitzer it would not make any difference to me.

which award, when, post a link :)

>>You apparently do not realize that the only evidence that I "love to argue on Slashdot" also directly implies that YOU love to argue on Slashdot.

this is like a studying some goo one finds in a swamp. stay still and answer the questions already or no sugar for you my fine specimen! :)

>>It's funny that you think you're a big deal, and that you think you've won a single argument here.

>>Yes, specifics that could not possibly help or hurt your case that all makers SHOULD learn Chinese, nor my case that this is an asinine claim for you to make.

again, read the article. it's about makers who run maker businesses that work with companies in china, i even list out ones that do this now and how they're either learning mandarin or visiting frequently. look, i know it's hard to read past headlines. maybe you don't leave slashdot that often, but try it out sometime! if you read the comments no one is debating about "should" or the title or the title of the article because it's clearly explained in the first paragraph. the MAKE reader are extremely smart and can hold many ideas and thoughts together. slashdot trollers are not know for that ability as seen here :)

>>Perhaps, perhaps not. But I am unburdened by caring what most people think of me. It's a gift. I am not upset, in fact. I do have a problem: a nearly, but not quite, pathological need to point out the logical fallacies of people who are being douchebags, whether anyone's watching or not.

that's called trollin' trolly dude, and you're in the right place. you're completely bonkers and it's awesome to watch :)

please tell me more!

in 2011 it's awesome to watch a meltdown like this, throwing tantrums, resorting to calling people "douchebags" when they ask you to back up anything you're saying with specifics and just instead freaking out in the slashdot comments that no one reads - keep the dream alive man, this is your life :)

>>Sigh. No. Do your own homework, if you care.

just list'em out, what's the big deal? really, you why can't you name all the publications you've written for? is the list too long for the meager form here? :)

>>Correct. And? [slashdot.org]

Logitech Buys Slim Devices
On October 18th, 2006 with 80 comments

haha! that's what you're considering "articles"? it's a news item with 3 sentences from almost *5 years ago*. where do you store all the pulitzers!?

make way everyone, william blake coming through here!

>>However, I do take your response as confirmation that you really do find worth and value in relative comparison of publication credits. And I find that to be extremely sad and pathetic.

i'm still bummed you won't consider me for your future publication that you may start. maybe we can work something out where i intern or something!

look dude, just face it - you love to argue on slashdot, that's your hobby. mine is making open source hardware and now learning mandarin. think of the hours you're spending talking to me about *my article* and walking around all pissed after getting smacked down here. you thought this would be the usual trolling, but i asked you for specifics you can't provide and you look, foolish. not to anyone here, no one reads this, just yourself and that's why you're so upset :)

>>You're a damned liar.
>>You're a damned liar.
>>You're a damned liar.
>>You're a damned liar.
.

this is *awesome* i imagine a big ole' man-child meltdown, complete with jumping up and down screaming the same thing over and over.

>>I'd go over my significant list of publication credits, but I'll just note that I've writen articles and contributed to books -- as a writer, and tech editor -- at O'Reilly, just to make you feel more foolish, and leave it at that.

great, name a few. i'm morbidly curious about you vast library of accomplishments at o'reilly! you also spelled "written wrong", it's not "writen". but you knew that, perhaps this is some type of grammar test! perhaps now i can get that gig at troll-weekly you dangled.

>>... and? Are you trying to imply something? I can't see what. I've written hundreds of articles on Slashdot ... so? It seems like you are trying to make yourself seem superior to me just because you've written things, and you (ignorantly) assume I have not. Even if I didn't have a ton of publication credits, that would STILL be stupid.

trolly comments on slashdot calling people "douchebags" is not an "article" :) but hey, it's what defines who you are, live it, love it - way to set the world on fire, you are living the dream :)

>>I refused to do so, because it's fallacious. If I provide a list, you won't be convinced by anything, nor should you: my argument is not based on what I know, but the fact that you didn't make your case. Further, I didn't ask their permission to mention them to some douchebag on Slashdot, even if I wanted to.

you don't know anyone at MAKE, or anyone who actually makes things as business and works with china on a regular basis, you're ashamed of your trolly comments here that know one reads, that's why you can't stand behind them with any real facts, names or anything remotely resembling a coherent sentence :) you're claiming to know maker owned businesses but cannot provide any examples at all.

>>If you don't believe all makers "should" learn Chinese, then if you had half a damned brain you would have said from the outset, "I don't believe all makers 'should' learn Chinese, I just think it's a good idea to consider." That would have solved the problem. By not correcting your error, and allowing it to persist, you've necessarily implied that you continue to agree with it.

if you read the article you'll see where where i specifically say it's something good to consider. you should read past the headline on slashdot, read the full article and then comment (on MAKE) about improvements to it.

>>Remind me to never hire you if I start a periodical of my own.

drat, my hopes and dreams of being an editor at you new publication "troll-weekly" are now over. c'mon, dude - we both know you'll never actually create something besides commenting here, this is what you "make" , this is all you have - this defines you. you know you're never going to start a magazine or have people read *articles* you write, at your best you'll see how many times you call people "douchebags" on slashdot, when they point out you're wrong. dude - slashdot, you're on slashdot commenting about my article :)

pudge, you're claiming to know people at MAKE, but it's pretty clear you don't. you're claiming to know maker owned businesses but cannot provide any examples at all. my article outlines what's going on with actual makers, people i know - i've listed them out and talked to all of them. can you do the same? if you're still confused by the article, here is the first section, if you've read the article, not just a headline on slashdot you could have avoid this meltdown and name calling.

"In this week’s article I’ll talk about why I think it’s a good idea for any maker to consider picking up some new language skills and specifically what I’m doing. A lot of my articles tend to be about the future (I can’t wait to look back on these 5 years from now). So, yes, I think a lot of us are going to find speaking, reading, and writing the language of the soon-to-be biggest economy in the world and, who makes almost everything, is a good idea. It’s something to consider learning, starting now, particularly for makers, especially the ones who run maker businesses."

a good idea for "any" maker to consider :)

>>For THOSE SPECIFIC COMPANIES, fine. But what's that got to do with all the other maker-owned companies? You DID NOT make the case that this necessarily applies to ALL such companies. You merely hoped that by pointing out that it works for some companies, and YOU like it, therefore everyone else SHOULD do it. That's extremely poor reasoning.

again, read the article - it's for "makers" maybe that's not for you- read the comments *there* and review the long list of makers who are visiting china each year - this has already happened and will continue to happen. two founders of 2 of the top maker companies moved to asia already. if you read the make site you will see my follow ups with specific examples, past/present/and future.

>>I actually know a lot of people involved in it. I've been following it since O'Reilly put out the first MAKE (I still have a copy of it around here somewhere). I've done some of my own projects, and have many friends who do a lot more than I do (some of whom run their own maker businesses). And I know, very well, how diverse the people involved in it are. You apparently do not. You are closed-minded and think everyone should act as you would act, instead of trying different things and being themselves.

really? i've been there from the start, can you be specific who you "know" ? can you list maker owned companies of people you actually know, what they do and if they get goods from china? have you talked to them about this?

saying someone is "close-minded" by proposing makers consider learning chinese is, well, laughable - keep trollin' !