Re: Anyone using Vista?

In article <FYOdnVeh3OXvRyrUnZ2dnUVZ_i2WnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
HeyBub <heybub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <vJKdnSEadbaUSSvUnZ2dnUVZ_umWnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
HeyBub <heybub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

[snip]

Apples market share has grown from 4% and is now over 10%



http://www.tuaw.com/2009/02/02/apple-market-share-continues-to-climb-windows-drops/


I stand corrected. Your reference from an Apple sock-puppet is off a
tad, though. CNET reports a market share of about 9.6%.

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/01/apples-net-share-slipped-in-february/

But that's to be expected with the Democrats in control. All the
"beautiful people" use Macs.

Argumentum ad hominem, I believe... either that or less than two
months of being 'in control' has Democrats behaving like some folks
from (US state of your choice) I know like to think of themselves as
behaving.


Uh, so what?

'Argumentum ad hominem' is usually grouped among the 'logical fallacies';
either your rebuttal is fallacious and you've posted no data to support
any other kind.

If one buys a product because it is promoted by a celebrity,
and that reason is exposed, I suggest your belief that the exposure is
"argumentum ad hominem" is evidence sufficient of some psychological
pathology.

It would appear that your grasp of psychopathology is as sound as your
ability to present arguments which are not fallacious... consistent, at
least.



Linux has more servers than Windows does.

Sure. The geeks love Linux and it's the geeks that set up servers.

Argementum ad hominem, I believe... either that or corporations have
no sense of how to test a system for superior ROI, which may be the
case, in places where folks behave like some (folks from US state of
your choice) I have known.

Likewise, you have no practical concept of how business decisions are made.

Assumption of evidence... fits in well with the other logical fallacies,
too.

[snip]

I learned long ago - in the Dale Carnegie Sales Course - that you tailor
your presentation.

I'll remember that next time I'm in the market for a suit and avoid
appropriately.

[snip]

Yeah, but nobody believes Ballmer. Just ask any Apple user.

Argementum ad hominem, I believe... either that or this is what
passes for Reasonsed Discourse amongst some (folks from US state of
your choice) I have known.

I didn't bring up Ballmer.

You appealed to his veracity and to the accuracy of 'any Apple user' has
for it. Both argumenta ad homina.

It's God's honest truth. You can take it to the bank. You can let
your sister marry it. If you had it for dinner, it would be the best
meal of your life. You can build a religion around it.

Religions are not rational... as are some (folks from US state of your
choice) I have known.

Religion and rational thought are not contradictory; religion is rational.
Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, and some Muslim cleric (I forget who), settled
this hash in the 12th Century. You really should keep up.

Maimonides attempted to reconcile a relevation-based religion with
Aristitotelean writings; I have read both in the original. St Thomas
Aquinas (canonised in the 14th century... what was that about keeping up?)
relied heavily on the work of Maimonides and further attempted to
reconcile a revelation-based religion with Aristotles.

Notice 'attempted' in both. Religion is not rational.

Our decisions on what to buy are not dictated or imposed. There are
almost always choices.

'Choice' is not always rational... but then again, the concept of
'rational' has been completely alien to some (folks from US state of
your choice) I've known.

Argumentum ad changesubject.

Sparkling command you demonstrate there.

[snip]

Being a monopolist is not a crime. Private monopolies are almost
always good for the consumer. The arch monopoly of yore, Standard
Oil, reduced the price of kerosene from $3.00/gallon to FIVE CENTS.
In less than three years.

So, let's see... a free market's obvious conclusion is a monopoly,
which, by definition, has 'exclusive ownership through legal
privelege, command of supply or concerted action'... and since
ownership is exclusive the market is no longer free.

A "free market" is not a multiplicity of consumer choices.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market :

--begin quoted text:

an economic market operating by free competition.

--end quoted text

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competition :

1: the act or process of competing : rivalry : as a: the effort of two or
more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party
by offering the most favorable terms

--end quoted text

A "free market"
depends, in no way, on the presence or absence of a monopoly.

A free market, by definition, requires two or more parties. A monopoly,
by definition, has one (mono).

[snip]

'The most free market leads to a market which is the least free'...
this passes for logic, among some (folks from US state of your
choice) I have known. George Orwell - an admitted Socialist -
advocated that 'Slavery's Freedom!'

George Orwell is not only dead, but was wrong. The only thing in my
experience that comes close to these two conditions is the logic of your
post.

You really should get out more, then, and increase your experience... or
stay in more and read about what you attempt to espouse in things like
dictionaries, original sources and textbooks instead of scree that is
reminiscent of tracts found in public-transit terminals. Start with Adam
Smith... don't worry, if you're home alone nobody should be able to see
your lips moving.

DD

.

Loading