Originally posted by alex_ant
I doubt you would, but I'll take your word for it.
It seems to me that this is really your purpose in arguing here.
You are making an assumption about most Mac users that is not favorable. The assumption is that most Mac users are fanatics completely incapable of unbiased thought and reasoning. This resonates through all of your statements (if MacWorld would have written this with a favorable ending, you would be praising it--I'm paraphrasing, by the way)
Personally, I'm pretty insulted by this. I am a very rational, a very level headed person and I prefer Macs because of rational and concrete reasons. But you assume differently. You assume that I'm a zealot bent on protecting Macs at all costs.
This is simply not the case. I found the article erronous and the overall tone to be a veiled attack on the Mac. But because you saw the article as something else, you immediately start accusing us of being zealots. Thats in poor taste.
If you read my posts, and my original post, you'll see that I certainly didn't agree that this was the worst article ever, but I thought it was a bad article. I'm sure we can find many other articles out there (on a variety of subjects) which our opinions on the quality of the article would differ. In those other cases would you accuse the parties who like the article of being zealots?? I doubt it. But because it is in the context of Macs, you have grouped me, and other rational people such as Gelfin in with the fanatics.
You need to rethink why you are really arguing with us.
And I would think that you would really have looked up Ockham in the dictionary before attacking Gelfin. Almost all have it listed under both spellings with Ockham being as popular and accepted as Occam. Try it:
http://www.dictionary.com
Taft
