>No, what bothers me is your insistence that this review is unbiased and >even-handed, and that you give totally different treatment to positive and >negative reviews (negative reviews: honest; positive reviews: suspicious). >And now you think legitimate criticism based on actual experience is no >different from "Microsoft has to herd users to Windows 7".
The statement about herding is as controversial as writing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Everybody does it. It is a good business practice. Why do you insist that it has to be hush hush? Positive reviews are not necessairly suspicious. Reviews full of marketing puffery are suspicious. Reviews that are only positive are suspicious. Reviews that defy common sense are suspicious. Reviewers who only fawn are suspicious. Reviews that discuss both positives and negatives are not prima facie suspicious. Reviews with an error or two are regretable, but not suspicious. This is especially true for reviews of beta software. Reviews with serious errors are suspicious. Claiming that a review is biased because it is not uniformly positive is suspicious. I think you need to read more broadly and recalibrate your sense of reality. >What they do NOT do is ascribe any meanings and motivations to what MS is >doing. So what you object to is thinking and analysis? So it is okay to tell the lobster that the temperature in the pot is 90 degrees, but it is not okay to tell the lobster: "I think they are preparing to cook you." From the perspective of the cook I see your point, but I think we are all more lobsters than cooks. The lobster does not stand a chance without some thinking and analysis. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
