"I feel" are the first two words, therefore it is opinion article, the kind of opinion that does not stick to the facts, and rewards opinionated hivemind consent manufacturing. I stopped reading after those two words cuz it's dangerous signaling of ideologies in my nonfactual nonobjective opinion.
Granted, but to be fair, I feel like the whole piece is "I feel like spending inordinate amount of time to describe Mr. Gibson and his software in bad light", without an attempt at an equitable evaluation of the product itself.
I feel that jkhanlar's still going to read the rest of this comment where I call that behavior short sighted and stupid even though they said they wouldn't, because I also started my comment with "I feel". But the problem is, not only did they stop reading there, but they felt it necessary to inform the rest of us about it. Which only makes them look even more like an idiot. Thankfully, by applying their own logic to their post, and halting reading of their comment after the first two words, which are also "I feel", we can save ourselves the trouble. Unfortunately, we don't know to stop there unless we've read the comment, so we're stuck in a paradox.
You're criticizing a mode of behaviour (not reading the thing and commenting on it anyway) as stupid. Which I agree with.
Then you say the problem is they informed us about that stupid behaviour of theirs. I'm not so sure that is the problem here. Maybe it is their strange encrypted way to ask for discussion, or help. And we should explain that behaviour is bad and should evolve for better.
But then you're proposing we should adopt that behaviour to save us the trouble with them. Thus you're proposing using behaviour which you criticize on others, or in general, because it sounds clever/funny in the present case. But it isn't, because as you've realized, it does not work.
If you want to save people trouble from stupid posts, my advice is, explain why they are stupid, but do not propose using any stupid behaviour, including behaviours suggested in other posts, even if it looks like it could work towards the end goal. The reason is that end goal is not important enough, and suggesting people adopt stupid behaviour in one case to save trouble, is still stupid, and unfortunately, promotes use of that stupid behaviour in general.
Reading first two words isn't sufficient work to arrive at such conclusion. Thus you seem to have jumped to conclusion based on just two words, or more likely, you are showing off/asking for interaction with a seemingly cleverly constructed text that has all the negative attributes it criticizes in the other text.
I did not stop reading your comment, because I didn't think it is dangerous to do so, and I thought it was funny. I write here to you because I think now it is not that funny, and you should abandon this behaviour and change it for better. For example, before commenting on an article, I recommend you first read it all to understand what is it that the article says. You will then be in much better position to make a useful and funny comment here.
