[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
alan wrote:On 2004.11.18 18:31 Sadie Brinham wrote:
alan wrote:
On 2004.11.18 16:50 "Darke, Clive" wrote:"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".
'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
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
I did not know what FUD was-hence the definition for any archive readers
in the same situation.Personally,I did not consider any of the articles I have read concerning this to be "FUD".I admit to feeling perhaps the curt rebuttal was an attempt to stiffle debate..I couldn't say for sure,because I don't know you well enough to understand your character.
My sincere apologies for posting links to articles you feel are a waste
of time.
*Curtseys,then returns to her awful victorian testostocratic nightmare*
Sadie
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.