From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:08:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep29.030113.15991@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.180214.3087@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>>>>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>>>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>>>>than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
>>>>>at all?
>>>>
>>>>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>>>>their machine, but almost never use it. Both have copies bought
>>>>via store/mail order, not free or beta copies, or upgrades.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And I know at least one person who has bought the NT pre-beta CD-ROM and
>>>does never use it. So what? 
>>
>>     Read the original quote.  Wolfgang has proven Min's statement
>>false by counterexample.  The usage statistics on the Windows NT
>>PDK are irrelevant in this case.
>>
>
>Phil, please, try to make some sense.  How can anyone prove an example
>false by a counterexample?  An example is an example.  It can perhaps
>be falsified by proving that the example was just made up.  But an 
>example cannot be proven false by another example.  Understand?

     You didn't use an example - you made a statement.  "OS/2 is a
totally different story.  Once you install it, you use it."  Your
statement has been proven false by counterexample.  Why are you
having a hard time understanding that?


>can be installed and not be used.  I supplied a couple of cases that
>support the original poster's point and said your ***assertion*** that
>his argument was ***fallacious*** and based on ***unfounded assumptions***.

     I have supported my assertion in a previous post.


>Since I found his argument very cogent, I thought just saying his argument
>fallacious was not a good attitude.  If your post was not intended
>as a pure FUD as your posts have so consistently proven to be,

     Please demonstrate to me a single post written by myself which
is "pure FUD".


>I think
>you still need to say why you thought his argument was
>1)	fallacious
>2)	based on unfounded assumptions.

     I have already done so.  Please go back and find it.


>Now, back to the example business.  The reason why I didn't respond to
>Wolfgang's post was simply because I thought his post was not worth
>comment or counter-argument.  You can't win an argument by way of
>just saying I know such and such case. 

     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?


> For example, I can simply
>say that for every copy of unused os/2 I can match 100 copies of
>unused copies of Windows.

      I find this statement less reasonable that Wolfgang's, and
would require further evidence to support it.


>  In this case, Phil, are you going to say
>that I proved Wolfgang wrong by counterexamples?

     Wolfgang never made the claim that every copy of Windows sold
was being used.  You, however, did make a similar claim about OS/2.
He proved your statement false, but made no counterclaim.  Therefore,
he has made no statement that you could prove wrong.


>  I think you are
>stupid, but not that much.

      Sigh.  Someday you need to attend flame school - it seems like
you have the motivation for it - you are just completely inept at
the execution.

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.