🚀 go-pugleaf

The problem with Mr. William's argument is that it has been rejected
as a form of logic.  Protagoras tried to use the same argument as Mr.
Williams when he said that what seems moral to him, is moral to him,
and what is moral to you, is moral to you.  Plato pointed out in his
famous "Turning the Tables" rebutal that in that case he thinks
Protagoras is wrong, thus making him wrong.

Mr. William's argument leaves no room for falsehood (same problem
Protagoras had), thus making any statement he makes unable to stand up
to it's own logic.  

We could go on forever talking about the ways that MS COULD get
information out of your computer, and no matter how much proof you
presented Mr. Williams  would never be satisfied, because in his mind
he has made a judgement, facts won't sway him from his version of
reality.  He calls it a court of public opinion and appoints himself
judge over what other people should think.  

I think it's rather funny that when his logic really starts to crumble
that he hides behind the fact that he doesn't like any commercial OS,
as if that is a justification not to accept facts.  I don't like AOL,
so I am going to totally disregard any facts and just make up my own
sense or reality.  When you are ready to join the rest of us who live
in the real world, let us know.




muzok@msn.com (muzo) wrote:

>Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

>>Wrong.  This is not a court of law, this is a court of public opinion.  It is
>>not those who question Microsoft which have to prove anything -- it is
>>Microsoft and its' defenders who bear the burden of proof.

>oh, so in a court of public opinion, there is no issue of accountability or
>credibility. If really so, my opinion of you is that you are an idiot.

>muzo

>standard disclaimer