mlw <mlw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> A few years back, it used to be better. Intelligent debates were actually
> more frequent. I'm not saying that there wasn't spam or wintrolls, quite
> the contrary, we had them.
>
> What's different, and I had to side with Flatfish on this one, is a "gang"
> mentality where ad-hominem attacks are the more acceptable responses. COLA
> used to be better. Even the most evilly crafted troll was an opportunity
> for debate and counterpoint, and Linux, being better, always won.
Roy's stats are a good example of this : suck up to the gang and insult
others. They halso have a penchant for stalking anyone who says
something bad about Linux.
>
> Now, dare say anything negative about Linux or an open source project, and
> you are labled a wintroll. Such has happened to me, and as anyone who has
> been on COLA for any length of time will tell you, I am not a
> wintroll.
I never thought you were.
> When we lack intellectual integrity in our arguments, we lack any real
> authority to advocate.
Advocacy is the rough with the smooth. And encouraging negative as
well as positive feedback. Only through listening to complaints can
things get better.
> Linux will win in any honest debate based on technical merit. They key is
> not to fall in to the habit of using lies and half truths that the
> Wintrolls rely on to forward their position.
You are in the wrong group :-; But enjoy the floor show.
|
|
