Quote:
Originally Posted by Mivo
Obviously, preference is the dominant aspect, and we don't need to add "IMO" every time we express a subjective opinion in a discussion that is all about preferences and opinions,
|
Of course I don't think someone needs to add "IMO" every time they expresses a subjective opinion. Especially if it clearly IS a personal subjective opinion. But when it's conveyed in such a way that it implies universality (LCD screens are not good for reading for long periods of time), then it's not about personal opinion any more. You (rhetorical you)
believe (or want/need) that to be a universally accepted fact. And it's disingenuous to then turn around and play the "
I'm not going to put 'IMO' after everything I say" card -- In my opinion.
Quote:
|
but just to play devil's advocate: What if it isn't only about preference? What if there actually is a "best" way of reading that is scientifically backed? E.g how tiring a given reading method is for the eyes, whether LCD displays keep you awake, etc. I'd include surveys, but those are about preferences, too.
|
What if my aunt grew testicles; would she be my uncle?
My point is; why the apparent
need/want for eInk (or any screen technology for that matter) to be the clear, accepted and scientifically proven "Best Way to read electronically" in the first place?
I'm not looking for an end to personal opinion, just an end to the knee-jerk "Tablets are inferior for reading --
period" dogma. Regardless if it comes with an implied or retrofitted "IMO."