You make it sound like I deliberately chose not to include those details.
For the third time, what I did decide to do is focus on one aspect of the issue in this article, and the risks and long-term problems in a separate one. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I felt the risks and long-term problems would require an entire article on their own and so, as a responsible writer, I made that the focus of the second article to make sure it was covered more thoroughly. It's not irresponsibility to cover the topics you've mentioned in a separate article. In fact, I would argue that it was actually quite the opposite--to dedicate an entire article on its own to the risks and long-term problems. I would agree with you that to not have covered the risks and long-term problems would have been irresponsible, but I did cover them in an article intended for that specific purpose.
In my experience, people usually come to an article with a certain set of ideas or perceptions about what's going to be covered in it, and when those thoughts or ideas aren't there, the article is labeled irresponsible and the writer lambasted for it. Each article I write has a goal. Sometimes it's just to define what something is. That's what this article was meant to do. I'm sorry you seem so upset about it, but that was my intent in writing it.
Comment Reply
You make it sound like I deliberately chose not to include those details.
For the third time, what I did decide to do is focus on one aspect of the issue in this article, and the risks and long-term problems in a separate one. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I felt the risks and long-term problems would require an entire article on their own and so, as a responsible writer, I made that the focus of the second article to make sure it was covered more thoroughly. It's not irresponsibility to cover the topics you've mentioned in a separate article. In fact, I would argue that it was actually quite the opposite--to dedicate an entire article on its own to the risks and long-term problems. I would agree with you that to not have covered the risks and long-term problems would have been irresponsible, but I did cover them in an article intended for that specific purpose.
In my experience, people usually come to an article with a certain set of ideas or perceptions about what's going to be covered in it, and when those thoughts or ideas aren't there, the article is labeled irresponsible and the writer lambasted for it. Each article I write has a goal. Sometimes it's just to define what something is. That's what this article was meant to do. I'm sorry you seem so upset about it, but that was my intent in writing it.
February 16, 2013 - 10:49amThis Comment
Reply