Re: [LUG] More On The Patents/M$ Agenda

[alan <amd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2004.11.18 18:31 Sadie Brinham wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > On 2004.11.18 16:50 "Darke, Clive" wrote:
> >
> > > 'How much of this is FUD, ...'
> > >
> > > or maybe FUDGE (FUD.Greed.Envy)
> >
> > Microsoft haven't tried to , or intend to try to, patent any 
> > internet protocols.
> > They have issued licenses for internet protocols which they do not 
> > own.
> >
> > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/07/0519237&tid=109&tid=155&tid=123&tid=98 
> > so, in other words, FUD
> >
> > alan
> "It should be noted that FUD can be used incorrectly, when applied as 
> a label to offhandedly dismiss criticism or legitimate debate. One 
> example is if Microsoft issues a statement arguing the superiority of 
> Windows over Linux, and a Linux supporter or group automatically 
> denounces the statement as FUD regardless of its merit. Such an 
> incorrect usage would be a general type of logical fallacy known as 
> Ad hominem circumstantial".
> Wikipedia.

And your point is ?

( I thought that pointing out that the so called rumours were FUD was 
correct. No bias towards or away from any particular vendor/system/WHY.
Is it legitimate to waste peoples time with inaccurate reports, just to 
get another dig into Microsoft ?  I think not.
Is it correct to dismiss criticism that is inaccurately founded ? I 
think it is.
Please explain your post.

alan

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.