Homer wrote:
High Plains Thumper spake:
No, too sterile. Anti-Linux argument will go like,
C: You LIEnux loons, Microsoft cannot be a monopoly because
of da dit da dit da....
I was referring more to the type of debate that one typically
has with certain distro maintainers; Gnome and Novell devs;
and Mono fanboys, rather than Microsoft shills.
When it comes to Microsoft /shills/, no amount of argument
will convince them, since they are not interested in facts,
they have a "job" to do.
This is why I mostly ignore them, because engaging them in any
form of "discussion" is merely feeding their commercial
propaganda. They are more like advertisers; spin-doctors and
PR staff than advocates, or "evangelists" as the Vole dubs
them. Indeed, it's highly likely that this is exactly what
they really are - paid propagandists. After all, what else
could motivate a group of people to sabotage a Linux newsgroup
relentlessly for years on end?
And it's not like there's no precedent for such a thing
either, Microsoft Munchkins were caught red-handed sabotaging
the OS/2 group years ago.
Yes, I see that going on. What makes a difference is that now it
is easier to refute their arguments with the truth. No longer do
they appear as smoother talkers and convincers as they do as
complete idiots.
Thus, it is worthwhile to reply with factual information, to
refute their tales and spins. Otherwise, they continue on with
their diatribes.
There is a fine line, worst is to behave as them and to flame for
only the sake of flaming. All this does is provoke a flame war.
This in essence is feeding.
Finally, there is a point where it is worthwhile to back off,
enough is enough. Then, that is the place to stop replying.
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
|
|
