Note: I was going to write some more shit about Dalrock’s laughable entitlement complex, but Derek beat me to it. Because I’m a lazy fucker, I’ll just cut and paste his work into the front page. Take it away…
So here we are again lads. Dalrock is complaining again. In light of the absurdity of it all, I’m going full snark on this review. You’ve been warned.
Dalrock states the following:
“Nathan’s edited version of the exchange leaves out our agreement to have a back and forth exchange, and it leaves out the part where Nathan wrote:”
Ah ha! Surely we have him here! The very best evidence so far of the Warhorn duplicity worth half a dozen posts! Pitchforks out boys!
“I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view, even where our camp diverges.”
Let’s put our learning hats on and do a little analysis, shall we? Let’s see what Nathan wanted to do:
1) To understand Dalrock’s point-of-view.
2) To present said point-of-view.
In other words, “I want to understand your point-of-view so I don’t misrepresent it.” Gah! My eyes!
Nathan made his best attempt at understanding Dalrock. The point of the discussion was to make a best-effort to get it right, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t have gotten it wrong. So, did Nathan present what he viewed Dalrock’s point-of-view to be? Yes, of course he did. He even presented what he thought Dalrock’s full point-of-view was by posting the transcript of the email exchange which he referenced in the podcast (!!).
What’s that you say? Nathan didn’t talk about every topic that was available from the email interview in full detail on a time-limited, tacky-humored podcast? Oh no!
Okay, so in all seriousness, Dalrock is upset that he didn’t get enough airtime on someone else’s show. He’s upset that the editorial discretion of the podcast edited out the majority of content of the interview. He can couch this in terms of “he lied to me” but that’s not a rational conclusion.
Lastly, consider now much time he has now spent not engaging in back-and-forth debate.