RE: Review of CoinDesk's "I Want the Truth: Could Blockchain Stop Online News Distortion?"
This Steemit.com contributor, while attempting a critical analysis of a well-written article on CoinDesk.com which was delegitimizing the content of Steemit.com, demonstrated with its horrible writing, the original author’s point.
Nothing does more to discredit content, than poorly structured sentences piled high with improper grammar and spelling errors. To establish this platform as a legitimate alternative to mainstream media, contributors on Steemit.com must commit to improving the quality of their writing.
I see a gold mine of potential in this platform, but not until contributors step up their game and self-reflect on their ability to compete in the real world by learning how to compose grown-up sentences. If not willing to put in the time and effort required to post quality content, don’t whine when journalists point out the obvious, that Steemit.com is going to fail under the immense weight of the poorly written crap that is published here.
Additionally, commenters and curators should take their job seriously and refrain from robotic upvoting when an article is barely readable due to overwhelming sloppiness. If commenters don’t point out the weaknesses of the content, they are failing Steemit.com as much as the contributor’s juvenile writing does. When critics offer insight, as in the CoinDesk.com piece, learn from it, and improve, and then prove them wrong by your improving.
I agreed on that point, and others, yet you claim I say otherwise, hilarious! This is telling, that you couldn't read and understand something said, due to your fixation on grammar.
All of your criticism of grammar and spelling doesn't seem to enable you to read clearly, so it's not worth much to focus on such issues if you can't even comprehend what is written anyways. Are a few little grammar mistakes preventing you from comprehending what is said?
If you actually read, I agree with the author on that point. Thanks for trying to make a point yet fail miserably.
Yes, point out the weakness. Grammar and spelling, OK. But your other statements are just meant to disparage, and that's it. How?
I'm calling you as a bullshitter. Be specific. Where do such errors prevent an accurate representing of the information or of the issue? OMG... he forgot a 't' on 'the'... eeek! It's a garbage post! Horrible! Juvenile! LMAO. What a fallacious mindset you have. The content, what it says? Who cares, the grammar Nazi says.
You are just shitting over everything with a general wide-brush in an attempt to invalidate the review, simply based on grammar or spelling, which apprently prevents you from accurately assessing what was said? Yet other people, can understand, despite such errors. So while you present yourself as having some aura of authority over what is "valid" material in terms of grammar or spelling, you still couldn't comprehend someone agreeing with someone else? Good job on your intellectual abilities.
I didn't shit all over your piece by focusing on one thing and using that one thing to attempt to dismiss your whole piece. I honestly assessed it and evaluated it, which is something you apparently can't do here.
And by the way, this is not a newspaper. There are no editors. If you want to establish some of that, go ahead. I put information out, and do pay attention to grammar and spelling, but it's not my 100% focus. I also use text-to-speech sometimes. Sorry for all my "horrible worthless" trash "juvenile" posts as a result... what a baseless claim to make on the part of an alleged "intellectual" who is a journalist. You don't even care about the information content itself (you couldn't even understand when I agreed with the author) it's all about the grammar. What a joke!
So to recap, I clearly stated I agreed with the author (you) on the point you claim I don't, indicating your focus on grammar is preventing you from reading properly, making your reasoning fallacious when presenting your case. The words you used to describe the post reflect your bias and blindness to accurately assess information when you encounter grammatical errors. Something for you to work on.
You are 100% correct. I could not comprehend your message because of how it was written; and it’s not just about grammar and spelling. You challenged me to point out the parts that I have an issue with, but I think if you read what you wrote out loud, you will catch most of it yourself. My suggestion is to have someone read your articles before you publish them to find anything that doesn’t make sense or can be worded differently to be more concise. I was too direct in my criticism because I was genuinely interested in this subject and was disappointed that I couldn’t figure out what you were saying. Sorry I offended you.