On 10/1/05, Will Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
What you need to do first is get yourself a dictionary. When you say "proof" here you are meaning "assertion". A "proof" is evidence that your assertion in an argument is true (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proof). 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. Then it is a waste of time for you to assert that Microsoft "hates" Google because Google makes it difficult to suppress negative information about Microsoft, if you can't _prove_ it with facts. If you are unwilling to do so, then it is not an assertion of an argument about what is real, but merely your _opinion_. 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? I am not exactly sure if I understand what you are saying. Could you restate that in correct English? What exactly are you saying in that second sentence? I _think_ what you are asserting, with any supporting facts supplied, is that informed people (definition?) avoid (buying|using) Microsoft software, and that this is proved because Microsoft spends a lot of money and effort on spreading disinformation and smearing competitors because their software is (inferior? morally reprehensible? stomps on kittens?). If you haven't checked lately, Microsoft owns the majority of the IT market out there. Either there are lots of uninformed people out there, or people don't really take Microsoft's competitive tactics as a factor in their purchasing decisions. In fact, those people may base their purchasing decisions on something else entirely. I'll make an unsupported assertion that most people buying Microsoft software consider themselves "informed". Based on your logic, I could equally assert that they are buying Microsoft software because they hate Richard Stallman's philosophy. That may be the case for a very select few Microsoft zealots (Howdy Andrew!), but not for most Microsoft buyers. Will, what I am doing is not to support Microsoft and its business practices; far from it. What I am trying to do is to get you to realize that you are an irrational idiot making wild, unsubstantiated assertions that actually hurt the FOSS movement more than they help. John Hebert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/general_brlug.net/attachments/20051001/f2365784/attachment.htm From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 22:24:12 2005 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Baudouin) Date: Sat Oct 1 22:23:29 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]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Hebert wrote: ..snip... > > Based on your logic, I could equally assert that they are buying > Microsoft software because they hate Richard Stallman's philosophy. > That may be the case for a very select few Microsoft zealots (Howdy > Andrew!), but not for most Microsoft buyers. While I do indeed hate Richard Stallman's philosophy, I take offense at being called a Microsoft zealot. Is that the same as an anti-(Linux Zealot) in your mind? - (parentheses used to indicate that I am anti-zealots rather than anti-Linux). I am a best-tool-for-the-job zealot. GNU/Linux wins handily in some places (webservers, routers, security, f/oss) and loses really, really bad in others (ubiquity, RAD development, ease of use and administration, availability of applications). Why do I keep having to explain this to you? Is it because I am an abrasive asshole? You should read the content of my posts in addition to taking offense to the tone therein. ;) > > Will, what I am doing is not to support Microsoft and its business > practices; far from it. What I am trying to do is to get you to > realize that you are an irrational idiot making wild, unsubstantiated > assertions that actually hurt the FOSS movement more than they help. I've made posts to this list that echo the above paragraph verbatim.
