Comments on: Microsoft Exploits Death to Advertise Its Products

By: lalala

lalala — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:49:21 +0000

I clicked the link and got 34 hits. So 34 hits in 2 years is trolling? You’ve posted to many sites a lot more than 34 times in 2 years, so you must be a troll as well.

My original comment has served it’s purpose. It wasn’t to get you to refute the claims in the Linsux article, nor was it to prove yet again that you resort to defamation and subject-changing when someone outside of the Boycott Novell circle asks you a question.

I’ll save it for a later time when it’s needed.

Thanks Roy.

By: Moo

Moo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:36:36 +0000

I understand. You don’t address this lalala character because you consider him a troll who unworthy as a participant in a debate.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:26:51 +0000

I like Jackson’s music.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:25:18 +0000

I just don't waste time on people who have been trolling us for 2 years.

By: Moo

Moo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:22:36 +0000

One possible reason why Roy doesn’t respond to your query is because your logic is confused. There is no need to directly respond to confused logic because any the direct response will also be confused.

One possible reason why Roy doesn’t respond to every query is because he is exactly like every human with limited time resources. Every activity has an associated time cost. Maybe Roy doesn’t possess enough time to do all the activities he wants to do in addition to addressing every query directed to him.

I am also confused about the meaning of “flunkies” and “fancy dancy words”; would you care enlighten me so that my understanding is improved.

By: lalala

lalala — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:47:45 +0000

Once more, the question was not directed at you. I’m waiting for Roy to respond. I suspect I’ll be waiting for a long time since he seems to lack the ability to respond to any questions. Instead, he gets his flunkies to respond for him.

You can respond to this if you want. I won’t answer again because you’re not Roy. Go ahead and act all high & mighty again while throwing your fancy dancy words around if it makes you feel important.

By: Moo

Moo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:19:17 +0000

I am an artist of debate. As part of my craft, I study critical thinking skills. One of these skills is to identify faulty logic. Faulty logic is a source of confusion. Faulty logic should not have any place in any serious debate.

The fact that it was not being directed to me doesn’t matter. I responded in order to expose faulty thinking.

The only reason I sound high and mighty is because you sound loose and deceptive. People that promote loose thinking by choosing confusing language are either confused or intend to be deceptive. If you want to be taken seriously within a serious debate, you lose credibility when you depend upon faulty logic. If you want to be taken seriously within a serious debate, your logic should be sharp.

By: lalala

lalala — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:28:26 +0000

The question was not directed at you. If it was I would tell you to try again without sounding all high & mighty and then I would ask you how long it took you to look those words up.

By: aeshna23

aeshna23 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:12:30 +0000

This is just isn’t worthy of attacking M$. What else is Michael Jackson’s death for but an excuse to exploit the worthless morons who care about his death.

The words “dignity” and “Michael Jackson” shouldn’t even be used in the same paragraph!

By: Moo

Moo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:12:28 +0000

Your hypothetical example of death by starvation vs. using Internet Explorer is an example of a false dilemma. The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking.

The argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. You are wrong to claim victory by using argumentum ex silentio to your fallacious dilemma.

Please try again with better arguments that are not fallacious.

By: lalala

lalala — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:25:44 +0000

So, it really must be true since you are unable or unwilling to respond.

By: lalala

lalala — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:52:36 +0000

You talk about MS having no dignity left, but what about you BN people wanting people to die instead of having more IE users?

http://linsux.org/index.php/topic,1214.0.html