I’m skipping this article because of a red flag. If I see a comment or article where they split up some other comment or article into a dozen sentence-sized chunks and respond to each one of them individually, it usually means the author is not a good writer.
It’s a lazy way of writing. It shows they do not respect the reader. There’s an implicit message that says the reader is too lazy or too dumb to read the original LastPass blog post first. Frankly, it’s insulting.
I read the original blog post and I am personally grateful to have the portions of the OP present above the responses to them. It’s a useful way of not needing to either recall or actively cross-reference it, since this post is directly responding to facts stated in the OP. I do not feel insulted that they’ve made this easier for me.
This strikes me as a really weird take. If you’re trying to systematically engage with an argument, it’s just a useful way to be precise about what you’re responding to. I’ve often wished, as a reader, that certain articles did this, because it’s not always clear which parts correspond to which original points, and cross-referencing can get tiresome and distracting.
Also, assuming your audience hasn’t read a thing is IMO what you should do by default.
I think it’s precise rather than lazy. I’ll know what is responded to and what isn’t. I’ve seen way to baby cases where not doing that lead to confusion.
Another thing this can make visible is responding to the weakest part and ignoring the strongest. In my opinion this should be the default way of responding to anything that’s more than a few sentences.
I think it’s even more justified by the title suggestiong it will analyze the statement they made. I’d be disappointed if they did that in a way where they didn’t quote them like this.
There’s an implicit message that says the reader is too lazy or too dumb to read the original LastPass blog post first.
I don’t agree with this sentiment, but I do agree with your conclusion that articles that dissect something line by line in this way are pretty much never worth reading. They always seem so obnoxious and whiny.
I’m skipping this article because of a red flag. If I see a comment or article where they split up some other comment or article into a dozen sentence-sized chunks and respond to each one of them individually, it usually means the author is not a good writer.
It’s a lazy way of writing. It shows they do not respect the reader. There’s an implicit message that says the reader is too lazy or too dumb to read the original LastPass blog post first. Frankly, it’s insulting.
I read the original blog post and I am personally grateful to have the portions of the OP present above the responses to them. It’s a useful way of not needing to either recall or actively cross-reference it, since this post is directly responding to facts stated in the OP. I do not feel insulted that they’ve made this easier for me.
This strikes me as a really weird take. If you’re trying to systematically engage with an argument, it’s just a useful way to be precise about what you’re responding to. I’ve often wished, as a reader, that certain articles did this, because it’s not always clear which parts correspond to which original points, and cross-referencing can get tiresome and distracting.
Also, assuming your audience hasn’t read a thing is IMO what you should do by default.
I think it’s precise rather than lazy. I’ll know what is responded to and what isn’t. I’ve seen way to baby cases where not doing that lead to confusion.
Another thing this can make visible is responding to the weakest part and ignoring the strongest. In my opinion this should be the default way of responding to anything that’s more than a few sentences.
I think it’s even more justified by the title suggestiong it will analyze the statement they made. I’d be disappointed if they did that in a way where they didn’t quote them like this.
I don’t agree with this sentiment, but I do agree with your conclusion that articles that dissect something line by line in this way are pretty much never worth reading. They always seem so obnoxious and whiny.
How do you respond to someone’s statements without doing exactly that? I would really like to see your writing style.