Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 10:58 UTC
Windows 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).
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 78 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 338910
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Thom a Windows fanboy
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 15:17 UTC in reply to "Thom a Windows fanboy"
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

So Randall accuses Thom on a couple of occasions of being a Windows fanboy:[quote]But then again, you're not really a journalist, are you Thom? You're more of a fan boy who somehow managed to secure himself a bully pulpit from which to spout his unsubstantiated blather.[/quote]That's news to me, and goes a long way in establishing credibility, or (as in this case) the lack thereof.


Exactly - it sounds like he's just whipping out the tired old chestnut of "You're just saying that because of [pre-supposed bias goes here] - which is incredibly convenient, because it lets me dismiss your argument without the hassle of writing an actual rebuttal." The only difference is that that sort of nonsense is usually confined to an article's comments, not the article itself.

The hell of it is that I agree with Randall's conclusion, but I think the argument he bases his conclusion on is absurd. He's basically making an unverified assumption that is, itself, based upon "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" reasoning - an assumption based on a fallacy, great.

And the further hell of it? It would be trivially-easy to actually verify his conclusion - and do so using something a little more substantial than the number of kernel threads (like, say, the names, numbers, and relative sizes of system files between Vista and Win7).

Reply Parent Score: 2