On 2007-07-28, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Since there was no data whatsoever to support his initial numbers, just
> where do you think he came up with them?
That number, no he could not support the number.However
like I said the premise is correct and he did offer
sources for that.
Source:
searchwin2000.techtarget.com/ateExpertBio/0,289623,sid1_cid394091,00.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2077596,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K...
> And when he was shown that they were very wrong, why do you think he
> tried to change his claim to be that he meant comments, not submissions,
> even though there was no data whatsoever to support that claim, either?
He did support the original claim, he just couldn't
support the number he quoted.
Another source.
http://laughingsquid.com/microsoft-sent-a-free-laptop-with-windows-vi...
> ...
>> In the scheme of things I feel Roy's massive number of
>> good posts far outshine the marginal ones.
>> Nobody is perfect.
>
> So if he posts enough good posts, it's OK with you if he purposefully
> lies now and then?
I don't believe he is purposely lying.
If you can prove that I would be interested in seeing it.
Roy is just a little bit overzealous, at least from what
I have seen.
All these cherry picked posts happened long before I
ever arrived here and I don't claim to be an expert
on Linux advocacy, but like I said I just don't see
the malice you see in Roy's posting.
Is he perfect, of course not, but neither are you or I.
|
|
