__/ [ Johan Lindquist ] on Friday 23 February 2007 09:17 \__
> So anyway, it was like, 23:12 CET Feb 22 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it doesn't),
>> Roy is still making a fraudulent headline.
>
> Er, so, even if it wasn't actually wrong, as headlines go, it was
> still fradulent? I'm not commenting on whether the article said or
> didn't say what you think it didn't say, I'm just curious about your
> logic. As usual, it's somewhat fuzzy - at least to me.
It's not fuzzy (0<x<1). It's a 'binary condition', just like the company he
shills for. How palpable.
>From the message in the blog item, the subject line can be implied. It's just
less cautious in mitigating the PR damage, which is something that ZDNet's
_Microsoft_ blog would attempt to do. Mary always avoid inflammatory words,
as opposed to, let us say, Laura Benley (even MOG), who gets slammed for
sensationalism.
--
~~ Best wishes
Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam")
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:20am up 31 days 10:38, 8 users, load average: 0.45, 0.63, 0.44
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
