Replies

No Terpfen, I was refering specifically to your last comment.

My comment, upon to which you replied:"I still think they are a cult. :) (Please note the smiley face and the fact that it came following a complete captitulation-clearly an effort at a good humored peace offering).

Your response was to take it seriously:"At this point, the only cult in evidence is the cult of irrational, baseless anti-Apple hatred."

Thus proving that Mac owners lack any sense of humor.

Then in response to my agreement to Swordmaker's argument about pricing...my full confession that I was wrong, rather than gracefully accepting my surrender, he chose to pile on with another of his lecture series "Macs are better and you had best not disagree or I will bore you to death" and make the further claim of superiority of Macs. Such an unwarranted slap in the face deserved a response which I in turn made...using it to once more illustrate that Mac users are like DUers...arrogant, elitist, and ungracious in the extreme.

You Mac clowns live in denial of your own paranoia. Any comment, however innocuous, that in any way threatens your belief in the innate superiority of Apple computers is greeted by a virtual blanket party.

You make it just too easy to ridicule you. You're just like little Obama-ites sent out to crush any possible criticism of your beloved leader (or in this case your computers or operating system).

There's a perfect example of your sort of overreaction here in the comments section on ED Botts blog at ZDnet:

Do you need more than Windows 7 Home Premium?

My how you Mac-bots howl at Ed daring to compare OS-X Snow Leopard to Windows 7...even though he was simply using it to demonstrate that most users of Windows would probably only need Home Premium...and said nothing derogatory about Snow Leopard whatsoever.

Man! Talk about whiney little girls...

Once again I wish to thank you all for proving my point beyond any doubt.

You may now begin your hystrionics.

My how you Mac-bots howl at Ed daring to compare OS-X Snow Leopard to Windows 7...even though he was simply using it to demonstrate that most users of Windows would probably only need Home Premium...and said nothing derogatory about Snow Leopard whatsoever.

And how you are willing to accept anything written on the Web as gospel truth.

The reason Ed Bott was being brought to task is that he marked OS X as not having features that were in the Pro and Ultimate versions of Windows7 that we Mac users KNOW are in OS X Leopard.

Bott was doing the exact same thing, either through ignorance or deliberately, that some of the anti-Mac/Apple zealots do on FR—making ex cathedra assertions intended to establish Strawman points so he could knock them down with his ignorant claims. He was, in a not-so-subtle way, misrepresenting the capabilities of OS X to make it look less capable than the MS offering in an article that was supposedly only about the differences between Window7 Home Premium and the more powerful pro and ultimate versions of 7.

As was pointed out by even Windows advocates, for the purposes of his article the inclusion of OS X in the discussion was totally irrelevant to the purported purpose—especially in such a prominent position, often in the last sentence in his comparisons, making the judgement on OS X the conclusion of the paragraph. Certainly none of the OS X discussion in the article was probative on which version of Windows7 a Windows user should choose for his upgrade.

Bott is a professional journalist; it's hard for me to believe that he wrote in this manner carelessly. I think it was intended to ignite exactly the flurry of opposition and correction it did, generating hits for the ads on the web site. It certainly did that.

I reviewed the comments on both sides. I saw some errors in the Mac advocates' claims as well as on Ed Bott's and his supporters as well. Had I been earlier in the discussion there, I would have registered and called the Mac users on their claims and corrected the information. I would also have done what I do here... rebutted Ed's points with links showing the correct information, not just making ex cathedra pronouncements. However, at 583 comments, it was far too late to do any of that and have it relevant to the errors... the damage was already done on both sides.