Journal: Why a "foe"?

I recently got asked why I'd ranked another /'er as a "foe". Well, they're not a foe, at least not in the sense I've any personal animosity toward 'em, but they are an ass.

I read a really bone-headed posting by this person where they were clearly bullshitting and, in their rush to post early, hadn't bothered to read the original article (which addressed all of their attempts at criticism). Instead they'd read the usual off-the-mark /. synopsis, taken their lead from the other dozen uninformed idiots doing the same trying to post first, then gone ahead and performed a public vowel movement.

Sorry, but life is too short to put up with windbags pontificating on a topic they can't be bothered to actually know about, or even read the article they're purportedly going on about. At least in a meeting it's time on the clock, in real life they're just (not)know-it-alls wasting everyone's time.

That's sort of opine-from-the-hip isn't just rude but is out 'n out counter-productive to any real sort of conversation. So yeah, if tagging 'em a "foe" keeps those sort of anti-content postings from bubbling above my reading threshold then hey, it works!

If you're reading this going "Hey, I'm marked as a foe!" (by me or someone else) then consider if this applies to you: If you're in the habit of winging it, figuring nobody'll notice you didn't bother to do your homework, that your 'clever insights' were actually obvious ones already dismissed, then yeah, you're an ass.

Presumably you're getting some egoboo about any whuffie you find on /., because you haven't earned it and in fact are dragging the place down. So, why are you doing it? (Rhetorical, 'cause I really ain't interested in helping strangers work out their personaility problems.)