Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Rex Ballard: I advised Yahoo, Amazon and Lycos how to "take it to the next level"

  • Subject: Re: Rex Ballard: I advised Yahoo, Amazon and Lycos how to "take it to the next level"
  • From: Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:39:29 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • References: <gQ%pg.81891$qd2.78729@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <2384125.LZ5KSfH71p@schestowitz.com> <pan.2006.07.03.09.06.10.263851@tiscali.co.uk> <8q5nn3-krh.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>
  • User-agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1125094
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:07:58 +0000, spike1 wrote:

> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>> The problem being, most of what Rex claims *is* probably exaggerated or
>> untrue. I say 'probably' because I don't know for certain.
> 
>> I don't agree with the unpleasant manner DFS uses when he attempts to
>> refute Rex's claims, nor the way he slanders him, but surely it's fairly
>> obvious Rex is out to lunch. It is highly improbably (though not actually
>> impossible) that he has done everything he says he has without it ever
>> showing up anywhere.
> 
> Exactly. The fact is, it's *NOT* impossible.

Not impossible, no, but highly unlikely. He's obviously very knowledgable,
but I deeply doubt he did everything he says he did. Look at it
objectibely. If a Windows advocate made similar claims about his
activities, would you believe him? Or would you call him a bullshit artist?

> So even if he has exagerated, I still say, if it's a choice between dfs and
> rex, rex still has 100x more credibility.

DFS is an arsehole. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar too. Though
he often is. But are we going to hold Linux advocates to a lower standard
of truth than Windows advocates? If we are, surely we undermine our own
credibility, and by extension, that of Linux itself?

> 
>> If what Rex says is allowed to pass without comment,  while anything Erik
>> F (and others) says is attacked and they're expected to prove everything
>> he claims to the last detail, the moral high ground is lost. MIsinfrmation
>> should be corrected no matter which 'side' it arises from.
> 
> But what they're saying is character assasination or attacks on linux (both
> of which ARE bullshit) whilst at the worst, rex is the author of a work of
> fiction, what harm do his claims do even if they ARE false?

None, in COLA, but that's not the point I am trying to make. We don't
allow Windows supporters to get away with outrageous works of fiction in
their posts about Linux, so how can Rex be allowed to? I fully endorse
your dislike of character assassination and spurious attacks on Linux, and
it's perfectly understandable that Linux advocates should feel
uncomfortable about 'having a go' at fellow advocates. But if we demand
that the opposition back up any claim they make about Linux or Windows,
and that they produce facts not fantasies, how can we do less for our own
side? The truth should be our weapon.

-- 
Kier


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index