you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Only 5 instances of "I" or "me" in the article.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What's the significance of that?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Apart from maybe two paragraphs, it rules out one of the "kind[s] of tripe it complains about".

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There's no central thesis, it just meanders. The talk of fake personal testimony is just one example of content plagiarism that it vaguely touches on.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There's no central thesis

it has one.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What is it?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again, to myself, they're pointing out how everyone regurgitates the same information, rather than struggling to find their own perhaps unique niche. Now that's what I got from it, but I can see you think the article is crap, you've not minced words on it. I guess the glass is half empty to some, and half full to others. Thanks for communicating.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I will grant that it's not well-written, though I'm no critic of literature.