It’s like backing up an argument by linking to a paper that’s behind a paywall.
To be fair this is merely a quote thread. The author and link are there by way of attribution (often just a name is given, without a link). The quote should stand on its own merit.
This doesn’t have anything to do with the quote. I just think it’s kind of silly to give a link that people by default can’t read, and I think CronoDAS agrees with me.
I seem to have primed you in completely the wrong direction with the first half of that sentence. Would it be better if I edited it to “it’s like linking to a paper that’s behind a paywall”?
To be fair this is merely a quote thread. The author and link are there by way of attribution (often just a name is given, without a link). The quote should stand on its own merit.
This doesn’t have anything to do with the quote. I just think it’s kind of silly to give a link that people by default can’t read, and I think CronoDAS agrees with me.
“This” is about the analogy quoted in the grandparent, which is unfair for the reason specified. The “it’s like” target is not-like.
I seem to have primed you in completely the wrong direction with the first half of that sentence. Would it be better if I edited it to “it’s like linking to a paper that’s behind a paywall”?
That would make the analogy apt. I would agree with such a comment.
(This should by no means be taken as an implicit endorsement of interpretations involving ‘priming’.)