I'll repost an excerpt from my comment in the last thread because it seems even more appropriate here:
Why is it that most "mono haters" present reasoned arguments but mono supporters always reply with personal attacks and condescending dismissals? Not liking what you like doesn't make someone a zealot or a hater. Calling someone that when they've tried to engage in reasonable debate *does* make *you* a zealot and a hater however.
1) Mono "haters" *never* say mono sucks (although they do sometimes say it is slow which is true). They do sometimes ask the question, why do we need mono? For some reason though the reasonable and objective mono fans love to bring this up as if anyone was debating that anyway (this is known as a straw man argument, commonly used by irrational zealots to win arguments when they have no logical basis for their position)
2) Mono "haters" always bring up the fact that MS has patents on large portions of mono that have are *not* under ecma standardization. Reasonable mono fans always reply by saying that that mono is covered by ecma standardization and calling you a zealot (this is known as redirecting the question and not answering the question, also a favorite of zealots with no logical basis for their position)
3) Mono "haters" always bring up the fact that ecma standardization does not preclude MS from chargin RAND fees or requiring licensing. See 2) for response from fans.
I'll add for this particular case:
4) Mono "haters" ask why we need Tomboy when we have gnote that takes almost no space and is not controversial in any way? Mono "fans" reply with "rabble, flame, troll, hate, fud". (This again is known as not answering the question and redirecting the question in the form of character assassination).
Member since:
2006-04-22
I'll repost an excerpt from my comment in the last thread because it seems even more appropriate here:
Why is it that most "mono haters" present reasoned arguments but mono supporters always reply with personal attacks and condescending dismissals? Not liking what you like doesn't make someone a zealot or a hater. Calling someone that when they've tried to engage in reasonable debate *does* make *you* a zealot and a hater however.
1) Mono "haters" *never* say mono sucks (although they do sometimes say it is slow which is true). They do sometimes ask the question, why do we need mono? For some reason though the reasonable and objective mono fans love to bring this up as if anyone was debating that anyway (this is known as a straw man argument, commonly used by irrational zealots to win arguments when they have no logical basis for their position)
2) Mono "haters" always bring up the fact that MS has patents on large portions of mono that have are *not* under ecma standardization. Reasonable mono fans always reply by saying that that mono is covered by ecma standardization and calling you a zealot (this is known as redirecting the question and not answering the question, also a favorite of zealots with no logical basis for their position)
3) Mono "haters" always bring up the fact that ecma standardization does not preclude MS from chargin RAND fees or requiring licensing. See 2) for response from fans.
I'll add for this particular case:
4) Mono "haters" ask why we need Tomboy when we have gnote that takes almost no space and is not controversial in any way? Mono "fans" reply with "rabble, flame, troll, hate, fud". (This again is known as not answering the question and redirecting the question in the form of character assassination).
Nice.