amicus_curious wrote:
Ezekiel wrote...
nessuno wrote...
<Quote> You can count on Microsoft pulling the fake
research report trick at least once a year. It's always
the same. They'll report some result that makes them look
good and/or their competition look bad from an
'independent' source, but not mention that they paid for
the results, had their own people do the report, and
usually manage the research. This time around it's a study
by ClickStream Technologies, which found Microsoft Office,
to be far more popular than OpenOffice.org, which in turn
was far more popular than Google Docs.
Which is absolutely 100% factually correct. It's a lie to
deny this.
[quote] What Microsoft doesn't mention is that ClickStream
is headed by Microsoft's former head of Microsoft Office
research. Very independent, eh? [/quote]
Does this matter? The conclusion they have is correct. But
thanks for showing your stupidity and making the classic Ad
hominen attack.
No, nessuno simply quoted the article in:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/another_day_another_microsoft_lie
Then, this troll makes an ad hominem attack toward nessuno rather
than intelligently discussing the merits of or countering points
in the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
<quote>
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
</quote>
I realize that you are likely too stupid to 'connect the
dots' yourself so let me do it for you:
Tedious, but informative.
This is an example of:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
46. Accept the claims of other anti-Linux propagandists as
face value. Always treat other anti-Linux propagandist's
statements as being true. Accept their interpretations without
question, don't bother verifying their statements. If they claim
something against a Linux advocate always side with the
anti-Linux propagandists.
[/quote]
Maybe the High Plains Thumper will give it a go, too!
This is an example of:
[quote]
16. Turn a question asked of you back on your opponent.
Better yet, turn the questions back on the Linux Advocate with a
question like: "What do you think is the `right' answer, lamer?"
You have now taken the heat off of your ignorance and you have
cast doubt on the credibility of your opponent.
[/quote]
Person A makes claim X
(ClickStream claims MS-Office more popular than OO.org)
There is something objectionable about Person A
(The head of ClickStream once worked for MS before he quit.)
This is an example of:
[quote]
49. Restate the issues to support your preconceptions. If the
issues being discussed in a thread are not exploitable by you for
your purpose, restate the issues to support your ability to
attack Linux Advocate opponent.
[/quote]
Wouldn't the fact that he quit go to his favor? At a lot of
places, those who leave are considered to be the traitors.
Look at the story of Rob Glaser and Real Networks. Why think
that anyone who goes in Microsoft's favor is coopted?
Apparently he left to get an MBA from Oxford. Wouldn't that
be considered a "rebirth"? Linonut could perhaps paraphase
the West Side Story song better than my "When you're a softie,
you're a softie all the way! From your first double deal to
your last dying day!"... The muses abandon me at that point.
This is an example of:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
[quote]
Subject: 4.1 Drivel
Posts without interesting content are simple to produce.
Cascades have a long history on usenet, usually containing
wordplays round a specific theme. The Trolls version is a
cascade of drivel. two persons working online to the same
newsserver can throw a thread between themselves and create
very large numbers of posts. One person can throw a thread
between two or more sockpuppets.
[/quote]
Therefore claim X is false
(Your idiotic conclusion that MS-Office can't possibly be
more popular.)
Bzzzzt!!! Thank you for playing Little John. But you have
been eliminated in the idiot round.
This is an axample of an ad hominem attack.
http://tantek.pbwiki.com/TrollTaxonomy
[quote]
Ad hominem troll
Ad hominem troll at its simplest, will attack people personally,
rather than the merits of their statements or methodologies.
The ad hominem troll often has already lost a rational argument
about a topic, and thus its goal is to change the argument from
being about a topic, to being about the people opposed to the
troll (which could mean any/all rational person(s) in the
discussion), in the hopes of both discrediting people's ideas
indirectly by discrediting the people, and engendering an
emotional reaction from the people by attacking their egos /
self-image. [...]
Example: [...] Afterwards he continues with personal attacks,
starting subtly worded, then increasingly harsh:
* "some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand
the parallels"
* "Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the
proverbial bark."
* "Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and
ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame."
[/quote]
[quote] What Microsoft doesn't mention is that ClickStream
is headed by Microsoft's former head of Microsoft Office
research. Very independent, eh?
Boycott Novell did some digging about this latest
Microsoft study, and found, just underneath the dirt's
surface that ClickStream's senior research analyst is also
a former Microsoft Corporation researcher and strategist
for the Office product. If you buy that this study will
say anything except what Microsoft wants it to say, I have
some early- release, Detroit Lion SuperBowl tickets you
might also want to buy. Cheap!
...no matter who you believe, I urge you to try both
Microsoft Office alternatives for yourself. I think you'll
like them. </Quote>
http://blogs.computerworld.com/another_day_another_microsoft_lie
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
|
|
