I'm not convinced, but let us assume you're correct. What motivation would those people have to read a website where they're repeatedly insulted? Look at the VGChartz community: there are now the converted who listen to him, and the folks who refuse to listen to him anymore primarily because of his attitude. Any message he has for the latter is lost. Any and all Malstrom threads on this site quickly get sidetracked by discussions about the man rather than the idea, primarily because of his style. What good does that do anyone?

But it's worse than that. Look at this very thread: rocketpig, who once read Malstrom's works, is now so turned off by that unnecessary attitude that he no longer pays the man any attention. Nor is he the only lapsed Malstrom reader. Moreover, Malstrom's detractors, the people who would hate him no matter what style he used, now have ammo to use against him: if HE can resort to ad hominem tactics, fair play dictates that THEY can as well.

And let me be blunt: even for someone who visits his site daily, the abrasive, hostile, self-congratulatory style wears me down. I do not enjoy insults. I do not approve of puerile attacks. And I grossly disapprove of inefficient, self-defeating tactics, especially when the core ideas tend to be so valuable. It is infuriating to see him lie down in the mud, like those he criticizes, and frustrating to interesting ideas tarnished by the manners of the messenger. Had I, a person who is interested in the business side of gaming and who openly harbors a liking for Nintendo, read Malstrom's blog posts before I read his main articles, I can assure you that I would not be visiting his site today. I can hardly blame others for doing what I would have done myself.

He just tried his hardest to make Jeff Gerstmann look like an ass for no real reason, twisting his words and blowing it all out of proportion. Do you really need me to scrounge up old articles to show where he's done that sort of thing in the past?

Ask yourself this question: was it really necessary to try to make Gerstmann look bad and was it necessary to get his op-ed's point across? If it wasn't necessary, why'd he do it? More importantly, why does he seem to do it so often? This is the third or fourth Malstrom article I've read where I thought the same thing and I generally avoid the guy's writing nowadays.

The ones who refuse to get past his attitude are the ones who lose out, because he's going to be right whether they listen or not.

Ah, he's not using Ah Homoniem attacks, he's actually attacking the points, you could say he's arguing ad absurdum, I believe its called, but its not Ad Homoniem

He himself admists his blog is much less professional than his articles, blogs usually are, but one can easily find and read his articles if they so wish to do so.

You can lead a horsed to water but you can't make them drink, its is the fault of those who dislike him if they do not at least read first then make an opinion

Then your foolish.

It is not about 'persuading' it is about your claiming he is insulting his readership.

This implies that IS his readership, which it isn't.

So the guy didn't like having to do that (and again, I don't blame him, I wouldn't care for it either) and therefore he deserves to have his quotes blown completely out of proportion and made to look like an ass as if he was comparing his job to that of a soldier's?

You guys just aren't seeing it. Malstrom is the one being a giant douchebag... again. This isn't the first time I've seen him take someone else's rather innocuous quote and snarl it into a malicious rant, completely making the person look like an asshole in the process. He seems to get off on taking a simple quote and trying to make someone into a villain over it... and the readers eat it up.

The guy is an asshole and I don't know how some of you read his stuff.

you must realize the words you use to describe Malstrom fit you like a hand to a glove

Now you are personally insulting another poster =/

1.If you made a thread calling me ridiculous and a fool, i would read it, whether i listen to you depends on the points you make about me.

2.Maelstrom despises (as do i, and i am one of them) the 'hardcore gamers' that act elitist, although i am not elitist, i classify myself as a hardcore gamer too, sometimes i act elitist though.

3. If an american writes about social problems in communities IN AMERICA, you going to claim this is wrong because he is attacking his 'readership'? that since he writes about large segments of Americans, and he is American, this is faulty?

Your logic is very flawed, and i am having a hard time understanding how you can consider it coherent.

I do not see Maelstrom, asking for aid, or asking for 'fans' or praising 'fans' or anything like that, that would qualify or necessitate him having some duty or loyalty to any group, let alone any particular type of gamer.

Ah, I see the problem here, number three makes it clear. You think "criticize" and "insult" are synonyms.

They are not.

Then give me that job, seriously, I would love being able to live in hotel rooms playing video games, and get paid for it, seriously