| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Not so sure about the trollNot so sure about the trollPosted Feb 18, 2008 16:35 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: Not so sure about the troll by sbergman27 Parent article: SCO to continue the fight? It's not a question of whether you're convinced of anything, it's a question of whether you can describe the facts of the situation without gross distortion. Nor, apparently, are you able to acknowledge any correction that disagrees with your preconceived opinion. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you have to be corrected multiple times on the same point it says more about you than anything else.
(Log in to post comments)
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:30 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you have to be corrected multiple times on the same point it says more about you than anything else. """ I consider that the evidence which you and PJ wave around, making declarations that "There's Waldo" is so far from conclusive as to qualify as comical. Your "facts" simply have a very limited relevance. I absolutely despise Microsoft. I want to see them gone. But please... come back with some real, relevant, conclusive facts. And then I will be more than willing to use them in my own advocacy of FOSS.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:53 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Well, there's your problem. You confuse facts with opinion. "There's Waldo" has never been thought a fact by anyone, except apparently you. No wonder you have so much trouble.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 20:55 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] You are, of course, free to opine that the evidence is inconclusive, or (more to the point) dispute the relevance of the funder's relationship with Gates. But that doesn't give you license to misrepresent what the evidence was.
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 18, 2008 21:17 UTC (Mon) by jake (editor, #205) [Link] Ok, this looks like it has gone about as far as it needs to, doesn't it? I don't think anyone is changing anyone else's mind at this point and the thread is becoming annoying to some. jake
Not so sure about the troll Posted Feb 20, 2008 2:55 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] Nor does it give him the right to call her psychotic. Psychotic is skinning your cat, putting your PJ's on it and putting it in your bed. Psychotic is also showing up at your home in the middle of the night with five or six knives, a shovel, a bag of lime and a bunch of trash bags. Making allusions to an alleged scheme between multi-billionaires is simply biased journalism, or more commonly, blogging. Personally I was always under the impression Groklaw was a blog, although there is some stupendous information there it's always been colored by PJ's feelings. Right or wrong that's just the way she runs her site, personally I don't mind. But calling her Psychotic for it is way over the line. Personally I think the OP owes her an apology for such a blatant public libel. psy·chot·ic [sahy-kot-ik] adjective 1. characterized by or afflicted with psychosis. psy·cho·sis [sahy-koh-sis] 1. a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality. 2. any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia.
|
|
||||||||||||