Full disclosure, no I do not work for Reddit, nor any “competitors” of BoingBoing.
I’m not entirely sure what significance there is in the specific formatting of my critiques, as you seem to suggest there may be. What might you offer as an alternative to my current order of commentary? Should I instead be burying the lede? Should I be pretending I do not, as the saying so quaintly goes, “have an axe to grind”?
I will admit, I do prefer to comment on what I perceive as faults first, and then move on to the larger matter at hand. If someone links me to a scientific study, I will first examine that study’s rigor and legitimacy, and only afterwards do I engage with whatever point or argument it attempts to put forth.
The same is true when I read about current events and news pieces here on BoingBoing - I first scrutinize the material for any inaccuracies or faults, and then I engage the broader topic. In this particular case, I had every reason to address my critical concerns first - not only were the “quotes” immediately fresh in my mind because they appeared in the closing lines of the article, but their nature was also not immediately clear to me and prompted me to attempt to independently research and confirm or deny their point of origin.
I did not “attack the curators” as you claim, I made a critical point about the quality of the news content I had just consumed. If you cannot distinguish between an ad hominem attack directed at a writer and finding fault with the works they create, you have little basis for making negative assumptions about my or anyone else’s motivations for commenting.
