There was never a shortage of people taking some of those words out of their context, and arguing against what those words supposedly say.
Long ago I learned that if you want to have "viral" success, even on a more informed site like HN, avoid making more than one statement or claim in a piece.
"Modern Java application servers offer surprisingly high performance" (followed by details of performance improvements, etc), for instance, is okay: everyone who agrees will forward and agree and post, while those who might not agree or care will remain ambivalent and disengaged.
Change that up slightly, though, and conversationally add "...which might allow you to deploy on fewer servers than a similar solution built in Ruby" and you'll instantly gain armies of very motivated detractors who will go forth to denounce everything you've ever said, declare everything you've written stupid and misinformed, etc. Not based on objective disagreements, but based on a knee-jerk opposition that, much as with politics, can't be on a point or issue (e.g. "agree to disagree"), but has to encompass everything.
People who might agree or yield value skip the piece after seeing endless criticisms and complaints.
The crux being that it's very hard to gain agreement, easy to gain enemies. If you state ten things, people who disagree with but one of them will often fall in the latter camp.
Not that this changes how I personally write -- where I'll load pieces with things that people can disagree with -- but I see it constantly as stories tread the bottom of the front page, the detractors who find that one tiny thing they disagree with and blow it up to be all-encompassing, and it gets flagged to oblivion.
Long ago I learned that if you want to have "viral" success, even on a more informed site like HN, avoid making more than one statement or claim in a piece.
"Modern Java application servers offer surprisingly high performance" (followed by details of performance improvements, etc), for instance, is okay: everyone who agrees will forward and agree and post, while those who might not agree or care will remain ambivalent and disengaged.
Change that up slightly, though, and conversationally add "...which might allow you to deploy on fewer servers than a similar solution built in Ruby" and you'll instantly gain armies of very motivated detractors who will go forth to denounce everything you've ever said, declare everything you've written stupid and misinformed, etc. Not based on objective disagreements, but based on a knee-jerk opposition that, much as with politics, can't be on a point or issue (e.g. "agree to disagree"), but has to encompass everything.
People who might agree or yield value skip the piece after seeing endless criticisms and complaints.
The crux being that it's very hard to gain agreement, easy to gain enemies. If you state ten things, people who disagree with but one of them will often fall in the latter camp.
Not that this changes how I personally write -- where I'll load pieces with things that people can disagree with -- but I see it constantly as stories tread the bottom of the front page, the detractors who find that one tiny thing they disagree with and blow it up to be all-encompassing, and it gets flagged to oblivion.