So clearly all you did was get angry about a couple of lines in the article that were disparaging to Charlie. Did you not read the whole thing and understand the larger point? That Charlie is likely in the small group of people today who are setting the norms for tomorrow?
>So clearly all you did was get angry about a couple of lines in the article that were disparaging to Charlie.
Rather, I read the whole thing, and grasped its tone, intention, and structure.
>That Charlie is likely in the small group of people today who are setting the norms for tomorrow?
Charlie and his "influence" is insignificant to the "norms of tomorrow", and if you take away the jabs at "weirdos" like Charlie from the article, the only thing that remains is a tired old "online vs offline" diatribe, the kind of which has been written 200 times a day since 1997 or so.
