I'm sure the weekly standard isn't too popular here but they ran a great cover story called "The Infantilization of Corporate America," that was pretty funny and it speaks to your comment:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00...
This company, and the industry it serves, targets a specific clientele maintains a specific image. I don't think their decoration is out of line there, despite the fact that it would drive me bananas.
I agree that the nursery school decor is unwelcome without some overriding design goal, however.
Hm, I disagree. Have you looked at Zappos? They have every kind of shoe imaginable, including many very expensive men's dress shoes. Zappos's market is anyone who uses shoes, which is pretty much everyone.
Since it was not in response to an initial argument, you are formally correct. However, a more common, less rarefied definition of ad hominem is "appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason." In this sense, any insult based on personal taste with no logical basis is an ad hominem attack, which by definition is a fallacious rhetorical device. In either case, I am not open to prescription.
If someone who voted this down could explain how my post was in anyway "spam", "offensive" or otherwise incorrect, please do. You are opposing HN moderation standards by voting down to below zero something that does not match any of those criteria.
Some voters here consider childish insults worth modding up and someone calling out those insults worth modding down. Ironic, considering that the original insult was implying that Zappo staff members are immature :)
