As apparently most members of the "We Hate Windows" gang seems to lack knowledge of what MUST go into an argument to qualify as a "strawman tactic". I for one am getting tired and #$%&@ of people who are so low brow they try to sound like they have a clue about critical reasoning or logic and fall back on the "strawman" title to try to sound intellectual when they are attacking someone else.
I have grown weary of posting the criterion for a strawman argument and providing links to qualify those criterion, but I haven't posted the criterion for being a member of the "WE Hate Windows" gang in quite some time, and as I have them saved its a simple cut and paste to do so, so...I will do that for fun.
But first, let me state my own opinions first so nobody misunderstands where I am coming from;
1. I use Windows but I accept that, not only is Windows not perfect (a position similar to that of most OSX users, that OSX is not perfect or flawless) I also accept that Windows has numerous past, present and bound to be future problems ( a position about OSX endlessly refuted by too many OSX users.
2. I like Linux for what it is, I have used Suse for some time in the past and was very impressed but it is still a little primitive in my opinion compared to Windows and does not play games and still has a few quirks I do not want to deal with so I am still waiting for the 'real deal' Linux OS. I for one hope to see it one day.
3. I think Apple puts together a fine hardware package and I know a few OSX users and have seen OSX in action and its a damn good operating system but still it doesn't play games and has a few other quirks I don't care for so for all the extra money Apple charges its computers and OS its not the right hardware or OS for me.
4. My honest opinion is that all three of the major OS's can work close to perfection for the people who NEED what the particular OS supplies and do not need what the other OS's supply, each have their advantages and disadvantages.
5. I think, to few of the posters here are willing to accept the fact that each major OS has some significant advantages over the others, and as such are to ready to make arguments based on nonsense and lies and overblown fanaticism about their OS of choice. They have far too much of their own self esteem tied into their OS, and thats a little weird.
6. I think WGA is a very bad idea and that it relies on unworkable notions that come out of despiration of the bad decision to go with recordable digital information combined with the recordable CD/DVD format that on one hand is so cheap it provided software and media producers with obsene profits before the public gained the easy ability to record on this kind of media, and on the other hand ignores the worldwide social and cultural reality that people will always copy something for themselves when they can.
Here it is, the "We Hate Windows" rules once more:
I?m going to provide a public service to the ?We Hate Windows? gang here and publish a page out of their rule book in case there are some in the gang who have missed it;
RULE 1.0
When any Windows flaw or issue of negativity is reported all members of the ?gang? should endeavor to engage in the following:
(a) No matter how negative the report already appears to be, attack Microsoft mercilessly in order to give the most possible negative perception imaginable, even if;
( i ) the issue appears to be minor or obscure
( ii ) the issue is highly unlikely actually result in even minimal actual exploits or negative consequences for a majority of the public
( iii ) there is a potential that similar such issues or flaws may eventually be exposed in the ?gang? members personal choice of OS, if it ever becomes popular enough for anyone to even bother looking for it
(b) If anyone should ever have the audacity to defend any Microsoft product, for any reason, that has had an ?issue? or ?flaw? reported;
( i ) ignore any facts or common knowledge that is given in evidence of such a defence and continue your attack mercilessly as you never ever want to admit there is anything good about a Microsoft product
RULE 2.0
When a ?gang? members OS ( or other related software )of choice is criticized, or if in fact a genuine flaw is exposed, no matter how serious, or no matter the proof or empirical evidence provided;
( a ) NEVER, under any conditions or circumstances, admit or imply, directly or
indirectly that any report of a ?flaw? or ?issue? with a ?NON MICROSOFT? OSor ?OPEN SOURCE?or?APPLE SOFTWARE? product, in any way gives any type or kind of superiority to any type or kind of Microsoft product in any way shape or form
( b ) the ?gang? member shall defend their OS of choice ( and all related software)both sedulously and with extraordinary vigor, with every effort directed towards
belittling any ?Microsoft defender? to a degree where the said defender will abandon any further efforts at questioning the superiority of the ?gang? members OS (or related software ) of choice.
( c ) be very aware of what may be considered to be ?reasoned? or ?proper? arguments
of maligned ?NON MICROSOFT? products and counter such arguments in the following manner;
( i ) Imply or declare outright the argument presented against the said product is purely the result of a desire to garner favour with Microsoft
( ii ) Assert your own superiority and intelligence and discount the intelligence and personal integrity of an author of any such argument
( iii ) Make as many broad and sweeping claims as is possible that the author of such an argument is some form of ?apologist? and is creating the
argument out of blind loyalty to Microsoft and said argument has no merit
RULE 3.0
Whenever a user of a Microsoft product objects to an attack by a member of the ?We Hate Windows? gang, or such a Microsoft product user attempts to make any valid point that draws a negative inference towards a member of the ?We Hate Windows? gang or their behavior, attitude, opinions or anything whatsoever that may imply that a non Microsoft product or the user of such a product is not inherently superior to all others, and where such objections or complaints are difficult to argue against, even in the case of clear legitimacy in such Microsoft users complaints or objections, apply the following failsafe when nothing logical can be said;
( a ) Use the term ?STRAWMAN? in your commentary against the Microsoft user you wish to discredit.
(i)If required use this term without explanation or without knowledge of its actual meaning or definition.
(ii) Use use the term with total impunity as if you had a real point to make and ignore complaints of improper use of the term; as if the complainant did not merit a response or somehow had less brains then you.
Beware ye of the organization of scallywags known as the ?We Hate Windows? gang. We have your wretched book of rules and tactics and we are aware of the nonsense and blather you conspire to impinge upon reasonable people and we are fully aware of your vacuous attempts to imply we are shills, where in fact we could care less of product loyalties and simply want the best we can get. You on the other hand would be far better a person to drop your unreasoned hatred of all things Microsoft and simply engage the reasoned minds with reasoned discussion as opposed to the sheer nonsense you typically rely upon to make your points.
