In article <QOzLj.21660$%15.11834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That's how Roy Lied, and how you fell for it.
> Or, more likely, Roy didn't read the article any more carefully than
> Sinister, but you still want to pin the "liar" tag on Roy.
Then why is Roy composing a new headline to use as his subject, if he
doesn't know what the article says? He could just as easily (easier,
actually) copy the headline from the article itself ("Vista SP1 won't
install on dual-boot systems: Microsoft").
How come it's OK with you for Roy to summarize articles that way and be
completely wrong, but if, say, Erik, paraphrases an article, you dive in
looking for anything you can find where Erik's characterization isn't
100% spot-on? Roy can be 100% off, but Erik has to be 100% on...doesn't