In article <m4pkn4-20a.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@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_3-0-20&s
> >> > 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.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
