Here again.Sure I would, but you have an obvious dislike for anything from Steve that it makes it hard for me to take anything you say about him serious.
Which I did.I asked you to back up your statement and show a post where Steve or any creator goes after a poster for having a legit criticism of a book.
However, I don't know what your interpretation of "legitimate" is. Most of the time, it seems that ANY criticism of the book or the creators doesn't seem to be "legitimate."
But when you are the one who is judging what is or is not "legitimate," how can you really be trusted to determine something without bias.The post you showed didn't do that, not even close.
Most of the time, people making these statements don't establish what is or is not "valid" or "legitimate." They just say it isn't, and claim a "win." But playing ignorant doesn't make their argument any more salient (if they had one) nor does it disprove the other person's claim.
What IS your definition of "legitimate" or "valid?" What is the criteria? And- more importantly- why is YOUR interpretation more important than some other person's? How de we know YOU aren't swayed by bias, coloring your interpretation of these claims?
If you are setting yourself up as the authority on what is "valid," then you need to prove that claim. Otherwise, there's no reason to take the claim that the other person didn't prove their point seriously. It just comes off as sour grapes.
Again, you can make this claim all you want. Doesn't make it true.The things you're saying about these creators are false, there's no other way around it.
See how easy that is? You're claim isn't valid. You didn't prove anything. It isn't "legit." Easiest thing to do in the world.
Last edited by RDMacQ; 12-16-2012 at 08:58 AM.