Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 10:58 UTC
Two weeks ago, I published an article in which I explained what was wrong about Randall Kennedy's "Windows 7 Unmasked" article. This was noted by Infoworld's editor-in-chief Eric Knorr, who suggested that Randall and I enter into an email debate regarding the various points made in our articles. We agreed upon publishing this email thread as-is, unedited (I didn't even fix the spelling errors), on both Infoworld and OSNews. We agreed that Randall would start the debate, and that I had the final word. Read on for the entertaining email debate (I figured it would be best to give each email its own page, for clarity's sake. My apologies if this makes each individual page much shorter than what you're used to from OSNews).
Thread beginning with comment 338893
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-08
Great. :-) Oh how I love allquantified expressions - fail of proof with only one counter-example, and then claim the complete opposite of the expression.
From Randall, opening: Careful with those "absolutes," Thom. You'll find they have a habit of painting you into a corner. :-)
The more forceful something is claimed, it can be counter-argumented very easily when not backed up with enough facts (that are more useful than individual opinions in such kind of debate).
RE[2]: The Bald Soprano...
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 15:53
in reply to "RE: The Bald Soprano..."
Member since:2005-07-06
The more forceful something is claimed, it can be counter-argumented very easily when not backed up with enough facts (that are more useful than individual opinions in such kind of debate).
Or to mangle an old expression, "All absolutes are inherently false - including this one."
Member since:
2005-07-06
This debate reminds me of a scene from an absurdist play I saw a few years back (The Bald Soprano).
A husband and wife are sitting in their living room when the doorbell rings. There's no one at the door when they open it, and this happens twice more. After the third time, the husband proclaims "You see, when the doorbell rings, there is never anyone there."
Then the doorbell rings a 4th time - and this time there is actually someone at the door. So the wife triumphantly proclaims "You see, when the doorbell rings, there is always someone there!"