Ian Semmel wrote:
> Logically, it is impossible to argue a negative.
Very good... you passed logic 101, I see.
> However, this is what the so-called advocates in this ng are trying to do.
> The majority of posts are negative treatises on windows. The articles may
> be correct, but this in no way "advocates" linux.
No... we're pointing out the obvious, namely, the fact that, in many ways,
windows is highly inferior. Also, this group is for discussing both the
pros and cons of linux, as well as linux in comparison to other OSes.
> Arguments here usually take the following form :
>
> This object is not an apple.
> Therefore, it is an orange.
Which ones, exactly? I don't recall having seen many, if any, of the logical
equivalent of that assertion. And I've seen a lot of examples of logical
inconsistency in this group over the years.
> The newsgroup's resident spammer, Roy Schestowitz, is obsessed with Vista,
> posting hundreds of messages about it every week. I think he should go out
> and buy a few copies, as it is a well-known fact that only by confronting
> one's fears can they be overcome.
He's not a spammer. In case you can't tell (Roy does sometimes use
polysyllabic words, and I know those confuse you), Roy is posting articles
related to linux. And in a linux news group of all places. Sounds to me
like your argument consists of; this is pink, therefore, my bum itches.
Oohh... look, a shiny.
With warmest regards
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is
not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny
that feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
|
|
