Boomwave? Bearaphim iPod case

I note your patronising tone, Biffo - "Carefully", "extra points", "Hint:". Didn't you have a go at me for being patronising?

Anyway, I never told you what to think. Go on, actually show me where I've "repeatedly" told you and others what to think, instead of writing empty "go back and read what you've written" nonsense.

I called you on your false assertion about me putting words in your mouth, you said nothing. I asked you to explain the "misinformed Dixie chicks comment" claim, and again, silence. You're not able to back up those assertions, so you just ignore them in the hope they'll be forgotten.

The "sole arbiter" nonsense. When did I ever infer anything like that? The "how smart you make out" stuff, when I had done nothing of the sort. Honestly, you might as well have accused me of swearing, since I hadn't done that, either.

And writing "I'll let you have the last word, you seem to need it" is a game anyone could play, at any point in a discussion. It doesn't give you the high ground, it's just a pathetic non-argument, and it suggests you're going to leave the discussion after making a number of stupid claims that you're not prepared to back up, defend or even explain.

VanillaSpice: Go back and read what you've written. Carefully. Then come back and let me know whether you feel you can justify repeatedly telling me and other 'commenters' what to do and think. Extra points if you can do it in a way that doesn't make it sound as though you are addressing a group of schoolchildren (hint: you'll need to do a 180 style-wise)

I'll hazard a guess that you will think you are, but I'm quite happy to let you have the final word on that one, you seem to need it.

Biffo, don't confuse legitimate criticism with patronisation. As for that 'how smart I make out' quip - I've never claimed anything about my education, IQ or anything like it. I've never claimed to be intellectually superior to anyone, in any fashion.

First, all I said about the Dixie Chicks was that they had received death threats. They have, haven't they? I wasn't the only person to say so in the comments. So how exactly was I misinformed?

Secondly, I've got as much claim to 'understand' your arguments as you have mine. I could also claim that you're only pretending to understand because you disagree with me, but I won't - that's just a nonsensical attempt to portray someone's criticism as unjustified.

Finally, and this really takes the cake, we have your final sentence. Your first comment here said that TUAW shouldn't blog about novelty iPod covers because they're a 'waste of space', ignoring the fact that others might want to read about them, a bit like a 'sole arbiter' of what topics are good and right to be blogged about on TUAW!

My first response was polite, I thought, but you accused me of putting words in your mouth. I responded that I wasn't, and again suggested that you simply not read those posts you aren't interested in, rather than suggest that those topics not be blogged about at all.

For that, you accuse me of sweeping assumptions, patronisation, misunderstanding and (unbelievably) the very thing you started out doing, and you didn't cite a single piece of evidence to support those claims. Your ferocity and your straw man arguments are what are really beggaring belief.

VanillaSpice, you must be one of the most patronising commentators I've read on here in a long time. Having just seen your misinformed comments regarding the Dixie Chicks on another post, it also appears you are nowhere near as smart as you make out.

Here's a newsflash for you - you have no right to assume you understand someone else's point of view just because you don't agree with it. Not mine, not anyone else's.

Your sweeping assumption that you are the sole arbiter of what is good and right beggars belief.

Um, I never suggested they were your exact words, Biffo, I didn't try and put words in your mouth.

Now, how could there be universal agreement on what would qualify as 'puerile', or 'wasting space' ? Just because you don't want to read about novelty iPod covers does not mean that everyone wishes not to read about them.

There is no difference between you saying you want "wide content, but no iPod covers" and me saying I want "wide content, but no GTD stuff" and someone else saying they want "wide content, but no Steve Jobs stories". No difference at all. I do want to read about iPod covers and Steve Jobs and others do want to read about iPod covers and GTD apps, and guess what? We are all served really well here at TUAW.

This is a wide-coverage blog, with many stories every day. Like with all blogs, you're supposed to pick out the posts that interest you and read those. If you don't want to read about novelty iPod covers, then just don't read those posts! It's that simple. It isn't a question of editorial judgement, it's a question of reader judgement.

VanillaSpice: I didn't suggest that TUAW "should perfectly match only what I want to see here" [sic], so don't put words in my mouth.

What I suggested was that TUAW continues to offer readers a wide range of content, but restricts itself to subject matter which is a little less puerile. A broad remit does not mean that there should be no editorial judgement.

you haven't been around san francisco lately have you sam?

seeing bears wear dogtags is like listening to all woman band at a dihna shore.

Since when did bears wear dogtags?

Come on, Biffo - EVERY reader sees posts they wish weren't 'wasting space on TUAW'.

I have no interest in the GTD stuff, for example, but I am not going to suggest that they start a separate blog for them, just so TUAW can perfectly match only what I want to see here. TUAW isn't your blog or my blog, it's a blog for all things Apple, and horrid iPod covers unfortunately fall under that category.

In any case, the whole point with blogs and RSS feeds is that you can quickly scroll through the list of posts and only pick out and read those items that are of interest to you.

Shudder is right! That thing look awful, as far from cute as one can get.