"Please take this down and write your own book."

The person wrong was Edme. The person wronged was Shaw.

Absorb these facts.

The person who tried to tell the person he wronged that he hadn't actually done anything wrong was Edme. The person who twittered about the person he'd wronged being a douchebag was Edme. The person who continued and escalated the confrontation, instead of apologizing, taking his lumps, and STFUing, was Edme.

Absorb those facts.

This story does NOT start with Shaw's first message as some sort of aggression. It starts with Edme and it continues with Edme, no matter how you try to recast it.

Now, if Shaw's "tendencies" were leading him to try to ruin Edme's reputation, I think he could have accomplished that much easier by making a long blog post about how Edme is an asshole, instead of a blog post that tangentially mentioned that some unnamed people were trying to "port" his book, why that was a bad idea, and how to properly go about making a version of his book.

On the other hand, Edme tried to publicize the exchange. He posted it on HN to cold disinterest and a flag-killing. If anyone was trying to hurt anyone's else's reputation, I think it was Edme himself. That Edme's reputation will probably suffer more that Shaw's is just funny.

What you call for - as far as I can understand it - is a norm, a way to measure quality for texts. I say that this isn't realistically possible.

This works for people you know (easily, they can grok what you wanted to say). It might work for peers (they understand where you coming from, share some experiences and might know what you want to get at). In general, it doesn't work at all.

Things you completely ignore:

- Language: My first post started with the difference between reading in your native language and a foreign one. Depending on your readers understanding of your language you cannot transport your intentions in a reliable way. A smile, on the other hand, goes a long way to show that you are not actually mocking him/her and are a friendly person. Good luck, trying to make that universal.

- Feedback You can write a loooong text about a subject and cause me to explode when I read that midway through. If you tell me the same story face to face, you could probably read my expressions (depending again on context, how familiar we are, if you pay attention etc.) and navigate around some hurdles. You really want to tell a nice story about the Iraq war but notice how my mood turned darker? Good chance to ask me about my opinion and to take it slowly. How do you solve that in a text based conversation? Right.

- Context/Previous knowledge: You can talk about things I have no clue about, rather easily. Depending on your attitude and style of writing I might feel excluded, maybe offended, although it's entirely my fault. Face to face you could be Prince Charming. Without that and any knowledge of your readers schooling/education/knowledge, how are you going to make sure that you don't accidently embarass them?

I don't blame email or technology. The problem isn't new either. As long as we've been able to communicate in writing first, without knowing the other person, this problem existed. It's not about "emails". Neither about "technology sucks". It's about "words, without more context (previous encounters, a similar character, a shared history), don't carry the full information".

For me it's like a blurred image. If I know the thing that is depicted, I can clearly recognize it. If not, it's guesswork. You can try and make it easier, by blowing up your text to explain as much as possible and to try to (and fail) solve any ambiguous meaning, but in the end I'm still lost. On the recipients end, I have to rely on my information alone to understand what information you want to provide.

I have some good friends that are blind. In your world, they wouldn't miss that much even outside of online conversations: The text carries all the meaning, right? Nuances of the voice? Nice, but not necessary if the author is disciplined. Making faces, smiling etc.? Hey, you don't need that.

Are you really, really serious?

And you say "you have to learn how to write", when I say that reading is the part where the problem occurs? Can you really write "for everyone"? I'd argue that so far you cannot write for me, I'm still unsure if you are just trying to contine this discussion in a productive way (hints are some writing related parts of the comment, imo) or if you just want to talk me down (most of the comment, imo).

See 1, 2 and 3 and check if you actually _can_ write clear enough for everybody out there.

(FWIW: I used "me" and "I" in this text as a general replacement for "you" and "one", i.e. just examples. In addition, all examples are completely artifical as well and you cannot guess my feelings/viewpoints from this comment)

Martin's actions after Zed's response are inexcusable. But that doesn't mean Zed wasn't being rude.

I subscribe to the "Don't be a douchebag" philosophy, and I think both Martin and Zed were being douchebags. BUT Martin wasn't being a douchebag when he copied the book, he was just being ignorant (and breaking the law).