On 2008-10-26, Chris Ahlstrom <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2008-10-26, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>
>>> Roy likes to use weasel words to insinuate a position without actually
>>> saying it, then when called on it claims he didn't say that was the case,
>>> so he can pretend to justify not issuing a correction.
>>
>> Should I consider the assessment of "weaseling" to be an authoritative?
>
> Heh heh
>
> My own take is that, in a hurry to post, pretty much everyone here
> misses some key fact or makes some misstatement.
>
> In a normal place, follow-on conversation would correct it in a civil
> manner.
My problem is the deliberate part. He accuses Roy of something, but he
works to pick apart what the person was claiming that Roy quoted. He
offers no proof that Roy knows differently, or should know differently,
nevermind whether his argument about the other guy's words is all that
convincing (I haven't bothered to assess it since that's not what I was
after).
Later, a post which I also responded to, he goes on to whine that
nobody took him up on diverting the thread away from his knee-jerk, and
into the accuracy of the claims made by the article Roy quoted. But my
problem with it remains that he went after Roy as a liar, when he
hasn't offered a mote of proof that his claim is accurate.
Erik won't hesitate to go after similar claims wrt Microsoft, even when
there is at least circumstantial proof and/or a trail of evidence. Why
not challenge him on the same behavior when his claims have less
substance behind them?
--
A Windows utility is a virus with seniority.
|
|
