I'm not anti-MS. I quite enjoy programming in C# and using visual studio for a living. I even think Windows 8 works pretty well (split personality disorder aside).
You *could* say I'm a masochist for carrying on this type of a discussion with an AC (troll? not sure yet), but *I'm* not trolling. Outlook/Live/hotmail isn't bad. I think the author makes a good case for why google would be wise to make better APIs for gmail. His opinion being agreed upon by others doesn't mean that I think he's impartial...the two things are unrelated.
"might not be completely unbiased" was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that there is ample *room* for bias, if not proof of it.
You're right, you can say that about anyone for anything. You haven't said anything more worthwhile than I have. Just tried to accuse me of slinging mud (even though all I did was highlight the author's own disclosure statement). I'm known for taking pretty much everything with a grain of salt...I just enjoy the role of devil's advocate.
You are trying to level allegations against someone of lying.
I accused someone of lying, yes.
To make such allegations you need to show not only that what they said was untrue, but that they knew it to be untrue.
Well, I need to have evidence of that, yes.
The first is not difficult, but the second is a rather high goal.
It may be that the person who asked you for a citation would like to know how you would know what was known, when.
Perhaps. I wouldn't know their motivations, and won't guess.
Running around saying "I don't need a citation" or "everybody knows X Y and Z" is quite simply not in any way answering their request.
They made no request. They implied I had an obligation to provide evidence for every claim I make in a Slashdot comment, which is obviously untrue. I did explicitly make note that they may actually want to know what the evidence is; and if so, they can feel free to demonstrate that.
If you have a source to show that the person who made the false statement knew it to be false when they said it, that would be news to a lot of people.
Not anyone who's been following, but sure, the timeline hasn't been widely reported.
So? I don't have to cite everything I say. If you honestly have good reason to not believe this, please explain, and I'll consider spending my valuable time providing the evidence. But anyone who's followed this knows that the administration knew it wasn't the video, and knows that they said for weeks that it was. You merely saying I didn't provide the evidence isn't a compelling reason for me to do so. This isn't Wikipedia, and I assume that the participants in the discussion aren't morons and understand the issue being discussed. If you don't understand the issue being discussed, and are not a moron, and have a genuine desire to understand the issue
Also hand out candy to kids, accompanied by my friendly hellhound, plus atmospheric music and lights.
Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books have been distributed under several imprints: Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education); Microsoft Press (with production and distribution by O'Reilly), and Fair Trade Digital Exchange, where he was briefly a partner. On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate. Ed sometimes receive fees and/or travel expenses for live speeches and webinars from companies and organizations. Acceptance of these fees does not constitute an endorsement of the company's products. Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than seven years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth. Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.
Well, again, we know he was lying. That's been substantiated, not to 100%, but well beyond reasonable doubt. The government knew from the beginning it was not "the video," yet he and his people and his media minions spun it as being caused by "the video" for weeks. And Rice very clearly knew that there were at least strong reasons to believe it wasn't the video, but she pushed the video story repeatedly.
As to the reasons why he and his people lied, there's some evidence, but nothing very compelling other than the circumstances, which, to me, are fairly compelling. Why else lie about it being caused by "the video," especially knowing the truth will come out sooner rather than later, if not just to get past the upcoming election? Maybe there were legitimate reasons they legitimately cannot reveal, but I certainly cannot assume that.
the obvious context
... which you are incapable of providing any evidence of. You can quintuple down now if you like, but it won't change the fact that there is no evidence of this supposed context. Say whatever you want, but without evidence, it means less than nothing.
That said, it is also very telling that you earlier referred to "secret meetings" that Obama had that you said "everyone knew about"
My goodness you are so completely pathetic.
Again, I said Obama was either there, or was represented directly or indirectly. And yes, literally everyone who follows this knows about these meetings. They were widely reported across all media. I didn't think it was necessary to provide evidence.
I find it hard to believe you are this stupid.
We know, as a matter of fact, that Obama lied about the reasons for what happened there. It seems likely that, given the circumstances, he did so to try to paper over a scandal -- that the U.S. screwed up and allowed an ambassador and other Americans to die through its incompetence -- so that it wouldn't hurt him in the presidential election.
You may call that pretty minor. I don't, and I think most Americans don't. I think it's a damned big deal.
Pudge I'm sorry that you find context to be so vexing
Do you really think pretending the existence of a mythical context will make people believe it happened? Hm, you're a leftist, so, maybe, I guess. But around here it usually doesn't work that way. It's really weird that you're quadrupling down on your lie.
If there were actual context I should have been aware of, you'd have been able to provide some evidence of it. But you didn't even try, almost certainly because you know there's no evidence, and therefore, no context. So it's fairly obvious you're lying. The question is: why? What's going on inside that head of yours that you think this is fruitful?
Again, my only guess is that you don't take yourself seriously. So be it.
So you first say I had a "problem with context" that clearly didn't exist. Then you make up some bizarre definition of alternatives that necessitates the object being proposed later than the subject.
The thing I wonder is whether you even take yourself seriously. I'm guessing not. Either way, I won't even read the rest of your terribly silly comment, and hope that if you do take yourself seriously, you'll retry.
The restriction was
Never stated, nor implied by context. Move along.
it is the topic of discussion
False. The context was simply "Obamacare" and alternatives to it. If you think that the proposal from the guy running against Obama for President, while Obama was running on the idea that (mostly) became "Obamacare" less than a year before it was introduced in the Senate, is implied to be out of scope of the discussion, you're dishonest or a moron.
Since you imply that including such a proposal in the discussion would "open it up to any proposition that was made, by any person, at any time," I vote for dishonest.
The best case you can make here is, "well, yes, it wasn't clear, but that is what I meant." But it isn't what you said and it isn't what the context implied, so it isn't what I responded to. You can't win this point, because you simply have zero evidence to back you up.
Furthermore, any suggestion that it would reduce prices is pure speculation.
As I already demonstrated, no, it's not. The free market is actually very predictable about stuff like this.
did Obama know this would happen when he was secretly negotiating with the insurers
Wow, holy wild-assed speculation batman! Do you have any reason why anyone should believe this to have actually happened?
Because I tend to think Obama isn't a moron, and it would take a moron to not understand that if the insurers cannot offer new low-cost plans -- only keep grandfathered ones for grandfathered customers -- then by cutting a grandfathered plan, they guarantee that most of those customers will buy new, more expensive, plans, since it's all that will be available to them.
After all, it was written by people in congress - why would the "secret negotiating" have been done by Obama himself?
First, we know these secret negotiations happened. Second, whether or not Obama was there, his administration was represented, either directly or through separate negotiations with the Democratic leadership.
In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.