Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 391030
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

Do not bother. Myself as well as others have pointed out to him why Vernor vs Autodesk is not similar to Apple vs Psystar. PJ from Groklaw did a pretty thorough analysis and explained why that is not the case, and has offered a more appropriate example (MDY vs Blizzard).
http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060

He still keeps going on about it, like a broken record. And it's quite hard to argue sensibly with someone who covers their ears and sings "Twinkle twinkle little star" loudly. Usually they're not adults.

Edited 2009-10-25 22:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Of course, the massively crucial difference between Bliz and Psy is ignored conveniently:

WoW is a subscription service.

Mac OS X is not.

In fact, in the Autodesk case, this was specifically mentioned - as in, had AutoVAD been a subscription service, Autodesk would have had a much better point to make.

PJ has completely lost it in the Psystar case, as she is convinced it is nothing but an attempt to destroy open source, funded by Microsoft, part of the SCO case. She's gone nutters.

Reply Parent Score: 1

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

So's OS X, you troll. It's rented, not sold.

As for PJ being nuts, let's recall she was right about SCO. There will come a day when we'll see if she was right or wrong about Psystar. I have a long memory and I use ScrapBook. The above quote will be waiting for you and that day on my harddrive.

Reply Parent Score: 0

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Is someone required to roll over and agree with your point of view because you've cited authority and shown some evidence?

No.

They may have good reasons for still not agreeing with you.

I don't know if that's the case here, but "Because PJ said" is not an answer to anything.

I am another person who thinks Groklaw and PJ have gone rather odd lately so I also pretty much ignore arguments coming from that direction.

Reply Parent Score: 2