From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: OS/2 VS NT! The Future War Looms...
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:33:34 GMT

In <1992Sep25.210451.23284@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.184306.23046@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>...
>>While this seems to happen to all of us occasionally, I would suspect
>>that it happens to both you and Pete and lot more often.  I would also
>>suspect that the reason for that is that your posts are often NOT
>>logical, informative, or balanced.  Much of what I've seen you write
>>says that something is bad for IBM, but a much greater degree of it is
>>a Good Thing (tm) when done by Microsoft.  Pete, too, tends to flame
>>by knee-jerk most of the time rather than actually responding to what
>>is said.
>>
>>Given that kind of postings, can the two of you really be surprised
>>when the rare informative posting gets ignored along with the rest?
>>After all, given such heavily biased sources (and I say that because
>>of public demonstrations of same, not because Pete works for Microsoft
>>or you do -- well, whatever it is you do), how much credence can
>>everyone else give to the rare balanced an informative posting hidden
>>down among the FUD?

>Just be cause what we post is bad for IBM or good for Microsoft doesn't
>make it untrue.  Just because a post raises fear, uncertainty, and
>doubt does not mean that the opposing side shouldn't feal that FUD.

No, but when it turns out that what you post and claim is a bad thing
for IBM and then turen around when someone points out the same thing
about MS and you then say it is good, it sure does call your
objectivity about 'facts' into question.

>Please give examples from a post where I've not been logical.
>(Surely in all my posts, there are some examples... but I think
>if you go back and look, you'll find your sweeping statement is quite false.)

How about the whole sequence on the 'June CSD' and the interview that
you claimed 'confirmed it' or showed that IBM was trying to 'encourage
the rumour'.  

>As to balanced... define that... I thought the whole point to having
>people like Pete and I post here is to _restore_ balance.

You'd be a lot more effective (both of you) if you didn't come across
as so heavily biased that much of what you post simply can't be
trusted (other than the long excerpts of things, and then one has to
avoid any conclusions you draw from that).

>I certainly provide far more information on this group than you do.

BFD.  You also provide more disinformation and FUD than I do.  So
what? 

>I also disagree strongly with the charge of heavy bias in either of
>our cases.  Pete of course is somewhat more "biased", but rightly so --
>loyalty to your employer is a good thing.  I on the other hand I regularly
>use both.  I admit bias, but it is not heavy... I simply have not been
>sufficiently Bluified that I believe everything that IBM says.
>Likewise I don't believe everything Microsoft says.
>I realize that the majority of our posts take the pro-Microsoft position...
>but why should it be any other way?  This group surely needs that input
>(and more) before any sort of balance is possible.

Yes, if 99 44/100% can be understated as "the majority".; certainly a
true statement.  Once again, if your bias was a bit less heavy-handed
you would be more effective.  

>The actions of various members of c.o.o.a that I (and Pete) have objected
>to are their seeming lack of the ability to see that anything but IBM and
>OS/2 can have any merit, or that OS/2 and IBM has any flaws.
>If one of our posts causes fear, uncertainty or doubt to be raised in your
>mind... consider... just for a moment... whether or not the emotions
>raised are appropriate to the facts being presented.

One can insert 'Microsoft' and 'Windows/NT' in your above paragraph
and it seems an adequate description of both you and pete.

>You're a perfect example of the kind of narrow-mindedness that often
>prevails in c.o.o.a.  You're so afraid that someone mind find a use for
>CD-ROMS, that you tied up two advocacy groups for weeks with your griping.

Geez, get a life, Brian (hey, didn't they make a movie about that
:-)).  You obviously are reading impaired if that is the impression
you got from my 'griping'.  Frankly, the more of your crap I read the
worse my feelings become about Microsoft and Windows/NT.  The same,
once again, can be said for much of what Pete posts.

>Despite my repeated assurances to the contrary... you still insist that
>my list of NT features do not reflect NT's current state -- without
>having seen NT yourself.

Brian, your list was PRESENTED as being features it was supposed to
have when it is released (at least the list I'm talking about was).
Pardon me for reading.  Does this now mean that you are inviting
everyone here to go back and criticize your list over things that NT
currently DOESN'T have, since you are now stating that you present NT
as it is now rather than as it is supposed to be at release?





-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy