Editorial news calls quite a lot of people Idiots

[Calum Veteran]

Last time I checked, an editorial is a well-written article expressing an opinion, not something that bashes people who disagree by resorting to childish name calling.

Had he left out the childish name calling, then yes it would just be another editorial and be okay.

Where did you last check then? Some of the most well-known and popular technology-focused websites?e.g. TechCrunch?publish editorials with similar sentiments.

I didn't agree with the calls for people to be shot, but I understood that those were made in jest, and they were edited out anyway.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

"Editorial news calls quite a lot of people Idiots"

I strongly disagree with the title of this thread. Brad Sams didn't call anyone an idiot. The word "idiot" (see below for a definition) is only used once and it's preceded by "makes you look like". Calling someone an idiot and saying they look like one are two different things. Also, it's not a personal attack and it's simply the opinion of an author ("editorial" - see below for a definition).

id?i?ot

[id-ee-uht]

noun

1. Informal . an utterly foolish or senseless person.

2. Psychology . (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/idiot

ed?i?to?ri?al

[ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-]

1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.

2. a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station or channel.

3. something regarded as resembling such an article or statement, as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.

http://dictionary.re...e/editorial?s=t

[Dot Matrix]

I like how people are butt hurt by this editorial yet if the author was bashing Win 8, you guys would be fine with it.

This. Let the writer go. It's dumb to compare to unrelated products for unrelated reasons. It just goes to show that bloggers are not an end all, and very few actually research what they write.

Vista /= Windows 8, and Windows 8 /= Vista.

[Active.]

I didn't agree with the calls for people to be shot, but I understood that those were made in jest, and they were edited out anyway.

Good decision. Calling for people who disagree with you to be shot makes you look like an idiot.

[Southern Patriot]

And by saying that a group of people are idiots, that means you're calling each person in that group idiots...

That's the part of the rules that I've never quite understood. You can't call one person an idiot, but you can call a large group of people idiots with no fear of retaliation.

[Haggis Veteran]

Pick you toys back up off the floor and go back to your daily business

[Southern Patriot]

"Editorial news calls quite a lot of people Idiots"

I strongly disagree with the title of this thread. Brad Sams didn't call anyone an idiot. The word "idiot" (see below for a definition) is only used once and it's preceded by "makes you look like". Calling someone an idiot and saying they look like one are two different things. Also, it's not a personal attack and it's simply the opinion of an author ("editorial" - see below for a definition).

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/idiot

http://dictionary.re...e/editorial?s=t

People who constantly quote the dictionary definition of terms without taking into account the connotation of those terms look like idiots. :-)

[Windows Nashville]

People who constantly quote the dictionary definition of terms without taking into account the connotation of those terms look like idiots. :-)

In before the deletion.

[Haggis Veteran]

hahah

[linsook]

title was distasteful. staff jumping defend one of their own, go figure. i've been here a while, seen many mods who were idiots. still got some....

[Haggis Veteran]

This thread would be aswell being closed as its going no where

[Southern Patriot]

In before the deletion.

I posted that precisely to see if the mods were going to be hypocritical about it.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

People who constantly quote the dictionary definition of terms without taking into account the connotation of those terms look like idiots. :-)

What does that have to do with my post?

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .] staff jumping defend one of their own, go figure. [. . .]

That means nothing. As you can see, members who are not staff are also defending Brad. Go figure. . . . :)

I wouldn't ever defend something that is indefensible.

Having said all of that, I don't think I've even defended Brad's sentiments; I've commented on other things in this thread.

[articuno1au]

^ Lies, seen you do it before.

Editorials are written with the express intent of ascribing a point of view to the author.

That is to say; it's his opinion. Presumably, if you are reading it, you are interested in his opinion. Clearly this is relevant given that he is a tech journalist.

Now, whether his assertion that some ought be shot is acceptable from a moralistic stand point is a different matter, but to suggest that his point of view shouldn't be posted is just asinine and ignorant.

If you don't like what he wrote, remember it when reading his other posts. Weigh up his point of view with what you have seen of him in the past.

Other than that, put you big boy/girl pants back on and stop crying like a bunch of half witted school children.

The internet is a big bad place. Sometimes people are going to hurt your feelings.

[Shadrack]

I didn't find it distasteful at all, and I can't honestly believe I'm the only one. As many have said it was very clearly marked editorial, you could've have ignored it. Since you didn't, you have little room to complain. Also what point is there in bashing a guy for stating an opinion? You folks do on this forum quite a bit, why can't the news staff do so on their place of choice, the front page?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if their goal is to decrease the number of readers. If they want to run this site into the ground with flame bait editorials then they should just keep doing what they are doing. I'm glad you enjoy those kinds of posts. Back to what you had quoted ""..if you get offended by something, then you deserve to be offended."" -- I would love to see you go up to a black guy, call him the n-word and try to explain that if he was offended he deserved to be.

[Shadrack]

What does that have to do with my post?

Because words have meanings beyond what are written in dictionaries. You never heard of connotation before or what? What matters in communication is what a person hears and understands, not what the person says and intends for the listener to understand. Any good communicator knows it not just about strict dictionary meanings of words.

The title in-and-of-itself called out people with a particular opinion "idiots". I don't have that opinion about Windows 8, but it is still name callings, and childish. Neowin is what, 11 years old now? You would think as a site it would be more grown up by now.

[Farstrider]

I think the rules should change, let people call each other idiots! I'll start: Everyone on Neowin is an idiot including me! :D

[andrewbares]

The title in-and-of-itself called out people with a particular opinion "idiots". I don't have that opinion about Windows 8, but it is still name callings, and childish. Neowin is what, 11 years old now? You would think as a site it would be more grown up by now.

They're never going to admit that the article was childish. It's like trying to tell a 11 year old that he's being childish... The child would just say "Yeah? That's normal!"

[Dashel]

I find it funny that people complain about editorials like this but continually come back to the site day after day to read the news and visit the forums anyway.

Especially those people who say there are better sites/forums elsewhere.

What can we say, we like trash TV. Most clearly come for the forums, not the news, because it does have a good international (mostly) english speaking base.

That's the part of the rules that I've never quite understood. You can't call one person an idiot, but you can call a large group of people idiots with no fear of retaliation.

QFT If calling out an individual is a personal attack (no matter how mind-numbingly stupid, lazy, or dishonest their comment is), how is calling a group out not the definition of flamebait (the other side of the coin on that vague, meddlesome rule)?

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Editorials are opinion pieces. No one now has the right to insult people on the forums because this editorial now exists. I really cannot even fathom why this is so hard to comprehend.

You too could call people idiots if you were in fact on the news team and you had an editorial that backed up the reason for doing so. Really is pretty simple.

If this somehow offends you, or you think there is a double standard because what is written in an editorial piece is not somehow carried into the forums, well I think that warrants further discussion on just who the real idiots may be.

[dead.cell]

This thread is like Vista, a failure bloated with crap.

/s

[andrewbares]

Editorials are opinion pieces. No one now has the right to insult people on the forums because this editorial now exists. I really cannot even fathom why this is so hard to comprehend.

You too could call people idiots if you were in fact on the news team and you had an editorial that backed up the reason for doing so. Really is pretty simple.

If this somehow offends you, or you think there is a double standard because what is written in an editorial piece is not somehow carried into the forums, well I think that warrants further discussion on just who the real idiots may be.

Editorials != name calling. Fact. They're about expressing an opinion in an educated manor. What he wrote was an informal rant.

[Mando]

Editorials are opinion pieces. No one now has the right to insult people on the forums because this editorial now exists. I really cannot even fathom why this is so hard to comprehend.

You too could call people idiots if you were in fact on the news team and you had an editorial that backed up the reason for doing so. Really is pretty simple.

If this somehow offends you, or you think there is a double standard because what is written in an editorial piece is not somehow carried into the forums, well I think that warrants further discussion on just who the real idiots may be.

here here, and besides its not like idiot really is "offensive" somebody who acts or behaves in a silly manner, no more offensive than being called a fool, numpty, tube, gimp etc. (sorry im just quoting calling nobody them except myself ;) )

I did object to the premise that anyone who thought what he was writing about (having a different opinion than his own) was a touch unprofessional but, its an editorial AND guess what he isnt a professional journalist, but I used my judgement not to carry on reading the article.....the power of choice ;) (which you also have to chose whether or not to follow, read and be a part of Neowin)

Was anyone harmed by the editorial, anyone lose their life? No.

To the OP no real harm done mate. You edited what offended and I commend you on that, we have all done idiotic/foolish/regretful things from time to time ;)

[Stoffel]

I can't believe people are still on about this

Are some of the people on this site that insecure about them self that they must feel personally attacked by an Editorial?

Give it a rest already