On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:31:49 +0000, spike1 wrote:
> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>> Not impossible, no, but highly unlikely. He's obviously very knowledgable,
>> but I deeply doubt he did everything he says he did. Look at it
>> objectibely. If a Windows advocate made similar claims about his
>> activities, would you believe him? Or would you call him a bullshit artist?
>
> Just cos you don't believe them doesn't mean you have the right to
> constantly call them on every little detail constantly without respite,
> though, does it?
But that's pretty much what happens to Erik, isn't it? And he may well
deserve it, but unless that degree of scrutiny is applied across the
board, to all sides, surely it's unfair.
>
>>> So even if he has exagerated, I still say, if it's a choice between dfs and
>>> rex, rex still has 100x more credibility.
>
>> DFS is an arsehole. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar too. Though
>> he often is. But are we going to hold Linux advocates to a lower standard
>> of truth than Windows advocates? If we are, surely we undermine our own
>> credibility, and by extension, that of Linux itself?
>
>>>
>>>> If what Rex says is allowed to pass without comment, while anything Erik
>>>> F (and others) says is attacked and they're expected to prove everything
>>>> he claims to the last detail, the moral high ground is lost. MIsinfrmation
>>>> should be corrected no matter which 'side' it arises from.
>>>
>>> But what they're saying is character assasination or attacks on linux (both
>>> of which ARE bullshit) whilst at the worst, rex is the author of a work of
>>> fiction, what harm do his claims do even if they ARE false?
>
>> None, in COLA, but that's not the point I am trying to make. We don't
>> allow Windows supporters to get away with outrageous works of fiction in
>> their posts about Linux, so how can Rex be allowed to?
>
> But his posts aren't (on the whole) ABOUT linux.
Does that make a difference? If he's not lying about Linux, he's free to
lie about anything else he likes, and this doesn't undermine his
credibility?
> They're about him and his part in how the world of technology is today.
Ye, that's true. And if his claims of his level of involvement are untrue,
how does that make him credible in other ways? It may be that they are in
part true, but fact and fiction need to be separated. Linux and its
development take place against the background ofthe techology he
describes, after all.
> If what he wrote is a work of fiction it doesn't exactly reflect badly on
> linux. Their lies DO.
Lying is lying, surely? You can't condone it in one person and condemn it
in another.
>
> Besides the fact that he DOESN'T say the things his website does here unless
> challenged by arseholes to back up his story.
In most cases, that's true. I certainly don't think Rex's private life and
sexual orientation should be dragged into arguments here, and have said so
several times.
>
> Doofy uses the argument that he "advertises his website here"....
>
> When? I don't recall such an incident?
> Or, is dfs referring to Rex's signature?
I imagine that's what he means, yes. I wouldn't describe it as
advertising, myself. Quite a few people put such links in their sigs.
> (in which case.... who in gods name even notices signatures, let alone pays
> attention to them anymore?)
Links possibly attract more attention. I think I've clicked on Rex's and
Roy S's at least once, out of curiosity. I don't know how many others will
have done the same. But if a link to someone's website is included in a
sig, it would be my general assumption that the person in question wants
to attract the occasional visitor there.
--
Kier
|
|
