From: darkstar100@...
Message: 64215
Date: 2009-06-18
>Not obviously. If one's criticism is overdone, it would be pshycologically counterbalanced by someone else's schizzophrenic uncritical nonsense, which would result in a talk of a fool and a madman (a typical pair at sci.lang). Balanced criticism should be unbiased, objective and concentrate both on good and bad sides of the story, or at least show or agree somehow with the basic parts that were properly done, otherwise that's just psychological sadism -- whatever one does, he or she is always wrong, and the torture continues. Such essetianlly sadistic characters are not only unproductive, they are in fact uncritical in their inability to provide impartial critical reviews.
> At 4:21:19 PM on Tuesday, June 16, 2009,
> darkstar100@... wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I will also test whether you understand basic logic
>
> [...]
>
> > For instance, if you get much too critical, and never say
> > anything good, I may draw the conclusion that you're not a
> > creative or maybe not even a smart person and that you're
> > only able to criticize other people's work without doing
> > anything of your own, [...]
>
> Speaking of basic logic: the ability or desire to do
> original work is obviously not a prerequisite for the
> ability to offer cogent criticism.
>
> Brian
>