Yes, but at some point what each one calls something stops, and they have to face objective reality.
Now, if you were talking about bad syntax/grammar/spelling, a blinking grey font over a white background, or something like it, yes, we could count that as "attention to detail". But not reading an article because of a mismatch with the title and it's URL (which isn't even targeted at humans) is an attention to useless detail, i.e to a triviality. I don't think there are "ifs and buts" about it.
>And your remark about OCD is offensive.
I'm sorry for that. But it could also be true. And those kinds of things are a sure-fire sign.
In which case, would it be less offensive (because it would then be just an observation) or more (because it would be tactless to point it out)?
Then again, I was trying to defend the article (which I found quite good) from a non warranted attacked over something less than a typo.
(Not that it's a big deal, I have some myself).
Well, other people sometimes are in the right on telling you to consider useless what they consider useless. For example, if someone tells you to consider "creationism" useless, they would be right. It's not like everything is a matter of personal choice --or that they just say it to impose their arbitrary opinion.
Same here, it's not like anybody else would have found the "url/title mismatch as a reason NOT to read an article" reasonable.
(We've ventured too far off into off-topic land, but what the hell)
>I'm just glad that the OP gave an actual answer... rather than just ridicule me.
And doesn't he being that kind make you regret suggesting people drop his article for a trivial typo?
