On 2006-08-11, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:04:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Perspective: Microsoft security--no more second chances?
> First, the article is pure speculation on the part of the author. Second,
> it ignores the fact that Microsoft apparently asked DHS to issue the
> warning. Third, His logic is so flawed as to be ridiclous, not to mention
> that his "facts" are wrong.
I'm confused.
1. He's speculating (Erik FUDsalot). Maybe this is backed by the
"Perspective" part in the title, and the question mark....I dunno.
2. MICROS~1© asked DHS to issue a warning. So he's /not/ speculating.
Or is he? M$© "apparently asked" DHS to issue it (Erik FUDsalong).
So Maybe it's Mr. FUDabout that's speculating, and he's not.
3. His logic is flawed (Ewik FUDdingbutt) and his "facts" are wrong
(Erik FUDsomemore). But if his facts are wrong, maybe his logic
isn't flawed after all. Instead it might be that he's using flawed
data. Or maybe his data is correct and his logic is poor. But if
he's speculating, it makes no real difference if his facts or logic
are problematic because he's expressing an opinion based upon the
criteria he chose to use. So it might be possible Erik FUDaround is
the one with flawed logic, trying to dismiss someone's _opinion_
based on Mr. FUDndud's own speculation that the _opinion_ can't
possibly be right since, in part, M$© "apparently" asked someone to
do something.
I'd bet it's like looking in a mirror to you.
Chalk up another apology for M$ by the Apologist in Chief.
--
Esbot: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
|
|
