Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

When you can hold a civil, two-way, responsive discussion, I have absolutely no problem doing a back and forth. Until that time, however, I have almost nothing that resembles free-time, and what little I DO have I’m not spending with a troll with his hands over his ears, whose only intent is to pust buttons and upset interested readers. However, holding grudges is not my style, and I’d be more than happy to interact with you should you be able to reasonably post

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

I just can’t get of this ‘putting 2 and 2 together’ way of pseudo-reasoning. Heck, that way you can fill up any logical holes or non-existing causalities by power of sheer imagination! What have you studied for! Man, you even graduate! Raise your standards.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

But I’ll do you the favor.

Link 1 is summs up as, quote, “where did Microsoft’s OpenOffice.org, Email, GUI, and other patent statistics come from?”
This isn’t an argument, let alone proof anything. And certainly it doesn’t prove anywhere that Novell admitted Linux infringing on anything; quite on the contrary they protested and insisted Linux doesn’t infringe on any patents.

Link 2 summs up to the Ballmer quote: “People that use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us.”
Ballmer going around threatening people as a way of marketing Windows is nothing new and not proof of a conspiracy, either

Link 3 summs up as only vendors that have an agreement with M$ being able to legitimately bundle Moonlight with their distributions. Well, the same goes for Macromedia and Flash; nothing new.
No sign of any conspiracy here, either. Indeed the article itself had a highly defensive undertone.

Roy, why are you constantly linking stuff that doesn’t support your point of view at all? Do you hope that readers would be too lazy to actually read the stuff you are linking to?

Also ‘put 2 and 2 together’ does not count as any kind of reasoning.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

http://boycottnovell.com/2007/06/08/where-did-that-235-patent-number-come-from-again/
There was another item I can’t find at the moment about Novell looking at patent portfolios before the deal,

“where is the conspiracy”

http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9793052-16.html
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/10/moonlight-only-novell/

Put 2 and 2 together.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

I don’t have use anything more sophisticated or turn to any more elevated authority than Carl Sagan here. As a child you certainly came into contact with him, little positive effect it might have had on your development.

Nevertheless, his TV-show and books were highly educational, introducing children to basic logic and scientific reasoning. Had you paid more attention to his show as a child you might not have fallen into this trap of false reasoning you’re in now.

So, let’s go back to pre-school. Your theory of Novell having betrayed Linux to Microsoft’s Grand Plan is a ‘Dragon in My Garage’. It’s a little story by Sagan that actually an analogy. Read it here: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

Basically it teaches that anyone can come up with the most absurd allegations that cannot be falsified. The trick is to incorporate non-verifiability into the definition of allegation. If I say, “well, I don’t see that dragon of your’s?” you answer “oh, he’s invisible”; if I say “well, where does Novell say that Linux infringes on MS-patents?” you answer “well, Ballmer says it does so implicitly”; if I say “where is the conspiracy” you answer “it’s invisible because it’s a conspiracy”. So you have incorporated non-verifiability at the very basis of your argument.

Try to falsify my ‘little green men’ to see what I mean.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

In this case, it is YOU who have made a claim. It is to my knowledge in the area I am commenting on. You cannot back up your statement. Instead, you use a reverse-double-negative and a reverse appeal to authority to back out of a FUD-filled ad-hom.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

Reasoning doesn’t work that way round, bro; if you make up wild theories it is _you_ who has to prove them.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

He’s spinning for Microsoft now. Next thing you know he’ll take the Rick J. role and claim that Microsoft did absolutely nothing wrong in its pursuit for this OOXML rubber stamp. By the way, Rick J. was paid by Microsoft, which makes him a shill.

I did a quick search for ‘eet novell’ and could see him involved anywhere else. Until he identifies himself, I’ll just assume that he shills for Novell and Microsoft.