Don't need to be rational. Human beings aren't rational.
> That your feelings are hurt has no impact on how good or bad the book is.
It could be a great book, but if somebody is rude then (some are suggesting that the comment is tongue-in-cheek but meh) I don't really need to engage with that person. There are plenty of great books that cover this material so I would just suggest others to look elsewhere instead. Ultimately - I don't reward poor behavior. There are very few people who could make a significant enough contribution that I would give a pass on rude behavior towards others, particularly if they are condescending or mean for no reason.
I also found it peculiar that you would believe that my feelings would be hurt. Why would they be? I just found out about this particular book and have no emotional attachment to it, nor the author whatsoever. Maybe you're defensive because you believe the book is good and worthy of being read despite the author's rudeness? That would certainly better explain your need to attempt to attack my "rationality" and suggest that my "feelings were hurt" alongside posting a link that wasn't worth reading.
> Don't need to be rational. Human beings aren't rational.
Some are more than others.
> Why would they be?
I don't know why they would be, but the fact that you say "that's so rude I'm not reading your book" is clear indication that they are.
> Maybe you're defensive because (blablabla)
What the hell are you talking about? I was just pointing out that you were letting your emotions interfering with making good decisions. I was doing this for your benefit. If you don't care about that fact, I don't either. Now, have a nice life!
The commenter isn’t trolling, you’re just being incredibly literal in your interpretation and responses, so much so that you’re being obtuse. He said “your feelings were hurt” because you said it’s rude - you don’t need to start a diatribe litigating the commenter for assuming your feelings were hurt. If you find something rude, you took offense to it in some sense, and if you take offense to something, reasonable people could say your feelings were hurt in some sense.
On a similar note, when the commenter said what you’re saying isn’t rational, you took the opportunity to point out that humans as a species aren’t rational. That feels like you’re deliberately missing the point, but in case you’re not, here’s that point restated: It doesn’t make sense for you to call an author rude when the author is matter of factly informing the reader of the necessary prerequisites.
For what it’s worth, it’s apparent that the other commenters who responded to you, myself included, agree with the substantive meaning you’re attacking so literally.
Don't need to be rational. Human beings aren't rational.
> That your feelings are hurt has no impact on how good or bad the book is.
It could be a great book, but if somebody is rude then (some are suggesting that the comment is tongue-in-cheek but meh) I don't really need to engage with that person. There are plenty of great books that cover this material so I would just suggest others to look elsewhere instead. Ultimately - I don't reward poor behavior. There are very few people who could make a significant enough contribution that I would give a pass on rude behavior towards others, particularly if they are condescending or mean for no reason.
I also found it peculiar that you would believe that my feelings would be hurt. Why would they be? I just found out about this particular book and have no emotional attachment to it, nor the author whatsoever. Maybe you're defensive because you believe the book is good and worthy of being read despite the author's rudeness? That would certainly better explain your need to attempt to attack my "rationality" and suggest that my "feelings were hurt" alongside posting a link that wasn't worth reading.