> You cut off the rest of my sentence so I would appear unreasonable. Sigh.
Fine, here's the full quote: > "Herding users" is not "charged language", it is an > even-handed, accurate description. That is what vendors > do. Apple does it. Google does it. Macy's does it. MS > does it. To deny it is just being starry-eyed. Makes no difference; you still miss the point. The point is not what Google, Apple, Macy's, or MS do; it is the tone and the language the writer uses. An unbiased reporter would never, EVER use a phrase like "Microsoft has to herd users". Or say that Win7 has the release number 7000.0 to "impress downloaders". Or that the entire purpose of the public beta is "to get early adopter enthusiasts talking about the new product". An NYT or Post writer saying this kind of stuff in a supposedly objective article would probably get fired on the spot. Now, the guy is entitled to use whatever tone and language he wants. He can be biased. He can hate Windows and MS to hell and back. None of this is the problem. It's his article; he's entitled to his views and opinions; and he can write it as he pleases. The problem is your characterization of this as, apparently, the one honest review. There's no WAY that this is an unbiased review; the tone and the language prove it, as does the source (btw, here's a great place to get unbiased reviews of Ford products: http://www.toyotanation.com). It's very, very clear: negative reviews are "clear-eyed", "even-handed", and "accurate". Positive reviews are "fawning", "suspicious", and written by "M$'s minions". I get it. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
