>And why do you insist that I've said things that I never said? I don't, and >have not, said that it has to be hush-hush. What I have said is simply that >this kind of language is not used in an unbiased review. An objective >reviewer would NEVER say, "Microsoft has to herd more PC users into the >latest version of Windows." He would instead say, "Microsoft clearly has a >need to convert more PC users to the latest version of Windows" or something >like that.
So it is just language? I have to write "that's a bunch of doodoo" and not "that's a bunch of crap." That makes such a big difference. As a lobster I would write "that's a bunch of mustard." >FOR THE LAST TIME, I object to NOTHING in the article. I object to your >characterization of it as an objective review. FOR THE LAST TIME, it is an even-handed review. You just don't recognize it because you have read too much that is severely biased. So to you fawning seems normal and normal seems outrageously unfair. It is important to watch out for personal bias. Without a firm grip on reality one starts to make really bad judgements. You start to believe that the Zune is an iPod killer or you show up in Baghdad expecting roses and you get IEDs. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
