It never ceases to amaze (510 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -1 on 3 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Naery (View user info) at 2004-06-25 04:29:30 EDT
I've been having trouble sleeping lately. That's not a ploy for sympathy or an excuse for the lack of quality of this post. It's an explanation for why I've been reading so much Ubersite. Also, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. Well, I at least have this uncontrollable urge to do things fully. This means that when I read a post, I read all of the replies. Yes, ALL of them. Now, in the last two and a half hours that I've been reading, I have noticed a horrible trend. People who post replies don't take the time to think about what their replies are.
Now that's a fairly nebulous statement, so allow me to elucidate:
There seems to be a ricockulous amount of people who rate/reply to posts that are fictional, and obviously so, as though they were Gospel Truth, or as though the author were somehow in a scientific vacuum and thus devoid of common sense. Now this may in fact be true.
But I doubt it.
The simple fact of the matter, the one that these particular people are missing, is that the actual Truth is much less interesting than a creative interpretation of the Truth. So if I were to say that bacteria choose their hosts, and if you were to read this, rather than trying to make yourself sound smart, superior, witty or funny by pointing out and highlighting the obvious fact that bacteria can't choose their hosts (of course they can't choose, they lack the prerequisite biological structures necessary for higher-order thought processes like will and volition), stop and ask yourself this very simple question: Is it probable that the author of this piece that I am about to rate with a witty retort based on their faulty science is in fact aware of the fact that their science is faulty and is using that faulty science as a literary tool? If the answer you provide yourself is "yes" then go no further, rate the author on writing style, ability and enjoyment, but not on intelligence. If, however, based on context the answer is in fact a "no" well, then, by all means, be pedantic, pontificate, and prove yourself to this community by demonstrating that you are the superior biologist/scientist/person by drawing attention to the mistakes the author has made, but don't do it unless you are 100% sure the author is an idiot.
Because, let's face it, if one makes a mistake in a public forum, one is subject to intense criticism. And that, my friends, is a double-edged sword. If you criticize someone for being an idiot when in fact they were bending the rules, then you look like an even bigger idiot, and consequently you are subject to receive a very intense flaming.
So please, save yourself and if you're not sure whether you're a genius, you probably aren't. But the person you're criticizing may be.
User Reviews
Submitted by Naery (user info) at 2004-06-25 19:52:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
indoninja, you're logic is astounding.
fleadh, you've apparently missed the point. this was not intended as an entertainment piece. this is a commentary. and thank you for your opinion, your "fucking geek" comment has opened my eyes to the truth of my existence.
Douchebags. Cherry-flavored, strawberry-scented douchebags.
Thanks for proving my point.
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2004-06-25 07:27:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea, I was reading this and then I realised that It was some guy trying to be super intellectual and then It kinda went blah blah blah blah....
For such a perfectionist your writing reads like a technical manual. Technical perfection and entertainment are 2 different fishies. Oh yea, You're a fucking geek.
C
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2004-06-25 06:00:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah, I am a genius, and this post does deserve to get flamed.