Re: Spin isn't an argument (Re: FW: MS's response to Nader)

[Pieter Nagel <pieter.nagel@epiuse.co.za>]

  On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Kendall G. Clark wrote:
  
  > 	*you can't trust these AM people because they all in one way or
  > another are connected to MS's competitors and, hence, they are MS bashers* 
  >
  >That's not an argument, and it's not a refutation of an argument.
  >It's just pure spin, it's propaganda.
  
  Where does the phrase "MS Bashing" come from anyway? It seems to
  imply that any criticism of MS is mere bashing, and that bashing is
  merely envy, and as such devoid of any real meaning. Ergo, any group
  of people discussing MS can be waived aside.
  
  And why does the fact that the conference is convened and sponsored
  by MS competitors render it meaningless? If MS were really on the
  verge of monopoly, who else *but* their competitors would be the ones
  to be hurt by it?
  
  I'm stating the obvious; but somehow in the presence of MS
  doublespeak fuzzies my notion of what the obvious is. 
  
  I've read so many statements by MS todat that IE is, was, and has
  always been an integrated part of Windows95 that can not be removed
  without breaking the OS, that I'm beginning to doubt my own memory.
  
  I'm *sure* I've installed Win95 from stiffies, multiple times, and
  each time ended up with a computer which *still* didn't have a
  browser, and yet worked fine. All those tech support hours spent
  helping people get Netscape or IE going on their machine must have
  been a dream, if IE had always been part of the OS? If IE wasn't a
  separate product, why did everybody have to go fetch it from the web?
  
       ,_
       /_)              /| /
      /   i e t e r    / |/ a g e l