On 10/1/05, Will Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I accept your concession that I will have convinced you of a thing if and > only > if I can convince you of a thing.
Circular definitions will get you nowhere. Perhaps you meant "I will use assertions backed by proof to convince you of my argument." And by replying, I assume you agree to use the methods of rational argument. Is this true? Which assertion would you like me to "prove"? Basically, I would like for you to prove your argument that Google is a threat to Microsoft's dominance in the software industry because Microsoft wants to suppress negative information about itself. To that end, you could pick any of your assertions in item 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. grocklaw.org <http://grocklaw.org/>, EFF, enough said. Well, almost. Microsoft and other large publishers are busy pushing through laws that have been well criticized. A little searching shows how this is the most important issue of all. No informed person would give money to a company that creates things like the DMCA. If you don't think Microsoft would like to suppress the above information, just try looking for it on MSN's hand dulled results. Typically, Linux problems make the list and actual information, such as project web listings, do not. As Microsoft has in the past tried to sabotage competitors, I'm sure they are busy Google Bombing day and night and this is why good technical information is becoming harder to find. A Google search for "DMA direct memory access" takes you to wikipedia (also under attack) and from there to O'Riely. Microsoft takes you to their support page about reading 20 digit product numbers and installing the "latest" mother board drivers to make busmastering work under Windoze 95. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Likewise, I will use this debate to argue that your conceptions of FOSS (free|open source software) and Microsoft are based on fuzzy-headed thinking and emotional reaction instead of critical thinking and logical comprehension, with the end result being that you represent a threat to the advocacy of FOSS by presenting an irrational perspective of it. Two men enter, one man leaves. Let's get it on! John Hebert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/general_brlug.net/attachments/20051001/d89e5026/attachment.htm From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 16:12:43 2005 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Hill) Date: Sat Oct 1 16:12:09 2005 Subject: Microsoft vs. Google; hopefully a reasoned debate was Re: [brlug-general] OpenDocument formats? In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OK, it will take some time but I'll work on the three assertions below. The first proof is that Microsoft wants, and has, suppressed negative information about itself. That's easy because there's a long trail of Astroturf out there and Microsoft spends lots of money on disinformation. The second proof, that Microsoft hates Google because Google makes it difficult to suppress negative information is more difficult. We won't really have proof for a few years, when the inevitable emails come out of yet another anti-trust suit or Microsoft's bankruptcy trials. I'll dig through what's available now, but it's a colossal waste of time. The third proof, that informed people avoid Microsoft, can best be proved by attention to the first easy proof. Why would Microsoft bother to smear other software if they did not believe what I say themselves? On Saturday 01 October 2005 03:01 pm, John Hebert wrote: > Basically, I would like for you to prove your argument that Google is a > threat to Microsoft's dominance in the software industry because Microsoft > wants to suppress negative information about itself.
