I thought someone wrote a Finder for iOS.

Oops.

Um, uh. Hi! You look swell.

PANTS.

You're due for a break, Rob. You done good.

Hemos didn't, but you did. ;-)

Being incapable of explaining how it relates to the point, you therefore tacitly admit that you are engaging in a red herring fallacy.

You really don't know how to Google? We've already established that it is unrelated to the argument; and I have no incentive to throw you any more bones. If you're of even moderate intelligence, you have all the information you need to find out in a minute or two.

Shrug. Google, if you care. Once you've Googled the above, this should be mere seconds.

Yes, and none of that implies ALL makers who run maker businesses SHOULD learn Chinese.

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.

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.

How did you become so closed-minded? I didn't "resort" to it. You make it sound like that's some last recourse. No, with douchebags, it's one of the first words I use, not one of the last.

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.

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.

On Slashdot, yes, that is what an article is. Are you new to Slashdot? I've done longer pieces here, but the majority are very short, yes, as almost every article on Slashdot is short.

Yes, when last I wrote regularly on Slashdot, it was a long time ago. And? If you recall, the point here is simply that you were trying to impress by pointing out that I was commenting on a Slashdot article about your article. I simply noted the fact that I've written many articles on Slashdot. I've been the subject of a few, too. If you don't think that's a big deal, fine, neither do I; we can both agree that an article on Slashdot about your article is not impressive.

Are you implying YOU have a Pulitzer? 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.

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.

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.

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.

Being exposed as a liar is awesome?

Yawn. No, I do not get worked up when I am smacking you down.

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

Correct. And?

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.

Again, I never said I did.

You're a damned liar.

You're a damned liar.

You're a damned liar.

Wow. You really think you've written better sentences than I have, with your many spelling, grammar, and punctutation errors?

You're a damned liar.

I did see that. But nowhere -- not even here -- do I see you disavowing your claim that all makers should learn Chinese.

And if you read ANY of my comments you would know the POINT of my criticism was against YOUR claim that ALL makers SHOULD learn Chinese. At any point you could've retracted your claim. You still have not, and therefore my criticism still stands.

Wow. You really are that stupid, aren't you?

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.

Except, of course, you never pointed out I was wrong.

... 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.

Actually -- and this should come as no surprise to anyone reading this far -- you're wrong, once again. I claimed no such thing. I probably DO know someone at MAKE, but I never said I did, or do, know anyone at the magazine. (Although I've met Dale before, more than once, and Mark too, I think.)

Seriously, learn to read. It's sad an "editor at large" has such poor reading skills. When I wrote, "I actually know a lot of people involved in it. I've been following it since O'Reilly put out the first MAKE," the referent of "it" is "community or movement". It's very clear from the context.

You're a damned liar, Phillip. 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.

Yes, exactly ... but -- as anyone who knows a damned thing about logic and reason can attest -- this doesn't back up your assertion that ALL such people SHOULD learn Chinese. It only backs up the claim that knowing Chinese works for that subset of people.

The only thing that confused me about your article is why you would claim that all makers should learn Chinese, and then not give any arguments backing up that assertion. Re-reading it won't solve this confusion.

So do you retract your claim that all makers "should" learn Chinese? And if so, then why didn't you retract it earlier, when I kept repeating -- and then directly criticizing -- your claim?

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.

You're exceptionally dense. Remind me to never hire you if I start a periodical of my own.

Again, you're a douchebag for dishonestly implying I didn't.

Again, you completely miss my point: I know many "makers," and they are a diverse group, and you are being extremely closed-minded by asserting that all of them should run their businesses a certain way.

Wow. You simply are not a rational person who understands the basics of logic: NONE of that backs up your assertion that every maker-run business SHOULD work that way. You do make a good case that this is something that works for SOME -- maybe even many, or most -- such companies. You do not make ANY case that it is what ALL such companies SHOULD do.

To put it in more mathematical terms, you are saying that everyone in Set C (maker-run busineeses learning Chinese, going to China, etc.) is also in Set S (maker-run businesses that are successful). But you provide no evidence or argument that everyone in Set N (not learning Chinese, going to China, etc.) needs to move to Set C in order to be in Set S.

Yes. Will I? Absolutely not. Such logical fallacies are irrelevant. Again, I can provide you the name of some books to help you out here.

Yes.

Yes.

Now you're just lying, Phillip. Please try to be honest. Your article made the point -- and I've explicitly repeated it every time I've criticized the point, often using capital letters -- that they SHOULD learn Chinese, not merely that they should consider learning Chinese. My entire criticism is predicated on the fact that you said they SHOULD learn it. I even explicitly stated that I think it is good that many are learning Chinese, which necessarily implies I have no problem with people considering it. I have a problem with your assertion -- which you are now dishonestly modifying -- that they SHOULD learn Chinese.

And, of course, I have a problem with you lying to us.

Look in the mirror, douchebag.