On Jul 25, 9:14 pm, Jim Richardson <warl...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:42:29 -0700,
> Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <m4pkn4-20a....@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Jim Richardson <warl...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> >> >> > Microsoft partner: Is the $199 PC doomed to fail?
>
> >> >> >http://news.com.com/2010-1005_3-6198367.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-...
> >> >> > ubj
> >> >> > =news
>
> >> >> > Watch where he comes from and watch the comments. His company sells
> >> >> > Windows
> >> >> > PCs
> >> >> > that Linux laptops are a competitive threat to. Why does C|Net carry on
> >> >> > publish these anti-Linux, anti-GPL, anti-EU, anti-ODF placements?
>
> >> >> I wonder if we should look at a few FAQ updates - one might include
> >> >> listing the various news organs and their affiliation, as well as some
> >> >> of the more obvious paid shill types, like Laura DiDio, say, or even
> >> >> some key people in major organisations who're making dangerous mistakes,
> >> >> like Ashley Highfield (of whom I suspect incompetence rather than
> >> >> malice).
>
> >> >> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> >> > Here's a thought: just for some variety, why don't you and Roy try
> >> > actually making an argument that isn't ad hominem?
>
> >> What part of that was an ad hominem?
>
> > "Microsoft Pal" and"Microsoft partner", for example. There's not a
> > single thing in Roy or Mark's posts in this thread that address the
> > points in the article Roy cites. All their "arguments" come down to
> > claiming that the article must be wrong because of where it is published
> > or because the hardware the author's company makes is used to run
> > Windows.
>
> > BTW, it's clear that Roy did not read the article, as it is not
> > anti-Linux, anti-GPL, anti-EU, or anti-ODF. (He didn't even bother to
> > look in enough depth to provide his usual out-of-context quote). He
> > just checked who the author was, and attacked.
>
> Doesn't answer my question. I asked what in *Marks* post was an ad
> hominem?
>
It doesn't matter, Tim's getting desperate for his FUD. Microsoft
partner is now an ad hominem attack.
|
|
