No, what I said is the statement is untrue. You wrongly interpret that as defending against criticism and thus make the statement inarguable by any man so you - as a man - then would be unable to disagree with her statement without proving it to be true do you not see how silly that is? Now even if you did accept that interpretation you further manage to somehow misinterpret my statement to mean I am "extremely sensitive", where again you fail. Do you believe her statement to be true?

It's not being "obtuse" it's your failed grasp of the English language and inferences of things that are not there.

Wrong, you are really having a hard time with your english comprehension. So let's dissect it to help you understand, first show me where I defended men (I'm not sure whether you are suggesting all men or some subset so you need to clarify that as well) against criticism.

Then you failed to comprehend it because there isn't any, legitimate criticism is fine but that is not what this is. You are confusing making sweeping accusatory generalizations with criticism.

Damn straight! Sure that sort of attitude isn't going to turn anybody sexist but it isn't exactly going to win you any friends either.

It's sexist statements like this that cause a lack of sympathy in the first place:

One of the consequences is that men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women

This is something that is simply not true of all men so why make statements like that? Do you really expect people to actively defend your cause if you are openly hostile to them just because of they are of the same gender as the people you have a problem with? That's a terrible start to conflict resolution.

Out of interest what is the advertising model?

Also wrt the timeliness of information I wouldn't think that's an issue, if it's more technical focused than "news" then I doubt timeliness is an issue.

If you take "secure" to mean "i don't know of any security vulnerabilities in it" then sure, but that's unlikely to be very secure.

Through a deauthorization attack

This is a MacBook Air.

It doesn't have to remain niche, but people won't change just for the sake of it, it needs to give people a reason to change.

Right, but why would somebody switch from the incumbent operating systems?

No, I'm not anti-Linux at all, you seem to not understand that you supplant an incumbent by differentiating in some way that consumers are going to say "wow that's so much better than what I have now". For example the iPhone vs Blackberry or the iPad vs the old Windows tablets. I'm a realist, I can see that that is what is missing in desktop Linux and that is the reason it hasn't supplanted Windows or OS X, it doesn't have a killer feature.

Agreed, but they all run on Windows and OS X too, so why switch to Linux? What's the killer feature?