From: 925wardell@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:00:47 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

>>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


	While I must confess that the logic wars between you two are
good reading to a point and Phil is truly a master at debating (unlike
the other MS employees on this net), let's move on, okay?  This is
really getting boring.

					-Brad


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy