From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:29:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct13.172942.26445
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <strobl.718567585@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>In <1992Oct8.163321.13640@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>In <1992Oct01.190528.6818@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>>In article <1992Sep30.210022.2904@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>In <1992Sep29.180844.4739@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>

>>>     I'm deleted a godawful amount of context here to save some
>>>bandwidth - if you need to read it, go back and find the old article.

>>Ok, me too.

>But you didn't go back to read the old articles, see below.

That's because I didn't have to go back.  See below.

>>>     OK, if you're up for some hardcore quibbling:

>>>     Installed doesn't necessarily mean "currently installed."  It
>>>could mean "was installed and has been deleted."  The original
>>>statement doesn't preclude using that definition.
>>>     Way back when this thread started, though, the basic argument
>>>(and I'm paraphrasing) was "Every copy of OS/2 is in use, but every
>>>copy of Windows isn't".  The second part I believe is correct - the
>>>first is far less likely.

>>This thread must have started some time ago, then, because I've been
>>reading for a while now and never saw anyone make a contention like
>>*that*.  I do, however, think there is probably a lot higher
>>percentage of idle Windows packages out there than there are OS/2
>>packages. 

>Irrelevant. The statement which triggered my remark "I know at
>least two people who have OS/2 installed, but almost never
>use it" was 
>   "OS/2 is different. Once you install it, you use it. It's as
>   simple as that"

>(Quoted from memory, because I don't have my logfiles at hand).

That's what I remember reading, too.  Your point?

>Simple prove by counterexample. "It is impossible to have 
>OS/2 installed and not use it". "Wrong. It *is* indeed possible,
>I know somebody who has OS/2 installed, but does not use it".

Your restatement is not the original statement.  This is the problem
with your 'counter-proof'.  You also did not say that you knew someone
who had OS/2 installed and does not use it; you said that you knew two
people who had OS/2 installed and RARELY used it -- but they still
used it. 

>>>>>     You can win an argument by presenting counter-evidence to
>>>>>contradict a claim.  Wolfgang's evidence was anecdotal, but still
>>>>>quite believable.  Are you seriously suggesting that he was lying?
>>>>
>>>>Well, I'm seriously suggesting that it doesn't constitute the
>>>>counter-proof of the original statement that you say it does, so
>>>>there's no need to suggest he was lying.

>>>      It depends on definition and context.

>>Even so, the 'counter evidence' contained the phrase "ALMOST never use
>>it [emphasis added]" and hence was 'counter evidence' for anything at
>>all. 

>You logic is flawed. I could have said: "I know somebody who has
>OS/2 installed, but does not use it, SOMETIMES", and it would have
>served as a counter-example, nevertheless.

It would have served as a counter-example FOR YOUR RESTATEMENT, WHICH
IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT.  Your logic is flawed in
your restatement of the original statement.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.