Yeah, um, you've got absolutely no room to talk...
Actually, I have plenty of room to talk.
First of all, although I believe my comments are fair, and, more importantly, fairly represent the truth, I'm not pretending to be "balanced". Balance for the sake of balance is the enemy of the truth. Secondly Gatorguy, like Fox News, is being entirely disingenuous when he claims to be "fair and balanced". (And, you, in your criticisms, either are too, or have an uncritical, shallow understanding of the issues discussed here.) Just like Fox News, he's spinning misinformation as truth to support an agenda that isn't balanced in any way. That might be fine, there's nothing immoral about having an agenda, but it isn't fine when you misrepresent and attempt to hide or deny that agenda, or your interest in that agenda.
So, while you may disagree with me, while you may find me overly partisan, or overly critical, I'm not trying to pretend I'm something I'm not. I'm not spinning bullshit and trying to pretend that I'm impartial. I'm being totally honest about what I think, and I'm being totally critical toward those who deserve criticism. And one of the things I detest and believe deserves criticism is dishonesty and the people who traffic in it.
Secondly Gatorguy, like Fox News, is being entirely disingenuous when he claims to be "fair and balanced". (And, you, in your criticisms, either are too, or have an uncritical, shallow understanding of the issues discussed here.) Just like Fox News, he's spinning misinformation as truth to support an agenda that isn't balanced in any way.
Simply saying that I'm spreading misinformation is pretty easy. Is finding examples of it just as easy?
Anonymouse, it's fine that you don't agree with me. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all. And sometimes I believe you're being totally honest when you don't. Opinions vary, which doesn't anyone's automatically wrong. Some of your posts are wonderful additions to the subjuct being discussed. But there's been times your disagreement seems to me like stubbornness. Your mind is made up and no inconvenient fact is going to change it. Those are the times I ignore you and move on to something more important.
And perhaps that's the dishonesty you think you see, or would at least like to? I don't always say exactly what I think. I may have a little too much self-control at times when the situation might benefit from puffing up a little instead. But I just never see any need to lash out at other forum members, make lame accusations against those I don't agree with or assign them some derogatory pet name.
You have a different way of showing your disagreement with them. Perhaps that works well for you in your day-to-day dealings. As you said earlier, that may honestly be just the way you are. I'm sure you have a lot of people in your life who like you as is and wouldn't have you change one iota.
With all that said, your failure to acknowledge a statement as valid does not make it misinformation. It only means you don't agree, and that's fine whether you're being honest or not.
Simply saying that I'm spreading misinformation is pretty easy. Is finding examples of it just as easy? ...
Here, without looking hard at all, are some examples from just this thread, and not necessarily all examples that could be found in this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I've never stated Android was "open", a term interpreted differently by different people for different purposes anyway. Without some control over the developement, you'd have a system like Linux. A great OS with little urgency to push features or a clear leader in organizing it's development. Why would you think it's a bad thing to exert some control?Closing it as completely as Apple does with iOS would obviously be the wrong move since there's several manufacturers involved. but some control is absolutely necessary IMO.
Of course the article is just based on claims made by an aggrieved party and their lawyers. I'm certain no one here considers a claim by someone to be the same as proof (unless it fits their views). Afterall, Casey Anthony's lawyers are said to readying a claim that it was Casey's Dad that's the real killer of her daughter.
I guess it must be true if a lawyer said it.
Let's look at this piece of sophistry. First, there's the explaining away of Google's claims that Android is open:
Quote:
... "open", a term interpreted differently by different people for different purposes anyway.
So, we're told that, despite the fact that Google has constantly touted "openness" as The great virtue of Android, it doesn't matter, because it's a word that doesn't mean anything anyway. But, according to you, that doesn't matter because Google's control doesn't change anything, and it's good. Closing it, like iOS, would be bad. Oops, I think you just implied that Android is open.
Then, there's the part where you disparage lawyers in an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, even bringing up a case with no parallels to this as a further distraction. You also misrepresent what the article is about:
Quote:
Of course the article is just based on claims made by an aggrieved party and their lawyers.
The article is actually about documents that, "detail Google's tight control of Android platform." It's not about "claims", which you wish to equate with wild, baseless accusations. It's about the actual evidence filed in the case to back up what seem to be very well founded accusations.
Do you really misunderstand the article and the issues that much? I don't think so. I think what we are seeing here from you is an attempt to spin this as much as possible in Google's favor -- i.e., damage control. This isn't a difference of opinion as you wish to portray it, this is a deliberate effort to misrepresent and mislead.
FWIW, there's a lawsuit filed (thread here somewhere) that claims Apple allows the same contact mining to occur without notifying users. And Apple has no setting to turn that off AFAIK.
Next, we have this little gem of misdirection. Unable to contradict the fact that Google is engaged in surreptitiously mining people's data in such a way that most people are unaware that it's going on or how to stop it, you attack the source of the information. A classic ad hominem defense: we should disregard this, despite all the evidence, because it comes from Facebook.
This, followed up by a tu quoque attack on Aple, designed to further distract from the issue, no doubt on the theory that the best defense is a good offense.
So, in just 2 posts, we see a number of attempts, and number of rhetorical techniques employed, to distract from and misrepresent the facts and the issues. We clearly see your strategy of attacking sources, denial of evidence, and backhanded attacks on others, all with the intent of spinning the information in Google's favor as much as you can get away with it. It's beyond obvious that you have a specific agenda here, and a specific mission to accomplish. What we don't know with absolute certainty is whether you are doing the on your own initiative, or whether you are employed for this purpose. But, my money is on the probability that you are a paid shill, which is yet another thing you aren't being honest about.
So, no, it's not about whether you agree with me or not. And it's not about not acknowledging the "validity" of your statements but labeling them misinformation: as we have seen, your statements and arguments aren't valid -- both in the sense that they are often composed of arguments that display logical fallacies and that they blatantly misrepresent facts -- but about the fact that your posts here amount to nothing more than spin doctoring.
Ah, now I understand. Misinformation means the type of facts or the way they're presented don't agree with your opinions.
Gotcha. And I've always thought misinformation was false information. Who knew?
Can't help yourself but to try to spin things can you?
No, misinformation in your case often means just throwing around a lot of innuendo, denying facts and misstating what was actual said, just like you did above
We know what you're doing here, and you don't have the integrity to be honest about it.
More open for software but closed for hardware. I don't know why hardware makers even use Android especially if it's closed. Motorolla and these guys could probably make some money helping Apple make it's Iphone better. At least there is money in improving Iphones.
Ah, now I understand. Misinformation means the type of facts or the way they're presented don't agree with your opinions.
Gotcha. And I've always thought misinformation was false information. Who knew?
Actually I think you are just spreading misinformation. The source of the argument doesn't matter if the argument is valid. Simply pointing out the source of the argument is not discrediting the argument that was presented and actually lends credibility to the merit of the argument since there is no counter argument.
Since you don't like or agree with some of what I write, feel free to call it spin. I think of it as strategic communication. Nothing I've posted is false unless you have some example of it. So far it's all about your opinion of the facts.
Somewhat related Anonymouse: Why do you have so much of an issue with "open"? I don't get the infatuation with whether Android is or isn't. Do you consider an "open OS" to be a good thing or bad thing? If the latter I don't think we may disagree at all that leveraging some control over Android development is good for consumers. You seem more upset that Android doesn't meet your definition of "open" and still wants to claim they are. Is it all about the word and not the OS itself?
Since you don't like or agree with some of what I write, feel free to call it spin. I think of it as strategic communication. Nothing I've posted is false unless you have some example of it. So far it's all about your opinion of the facts. ...
Still spinning away? You may think of it as "strategic communication", most of us call it lying.
But, yes, you are very careful to not post anything that's demonstrably false. As a consequence, you also never post anything that is demonstrably true. But, we've already covered this above, so it's sort of a pathetic attempt at a defense for you to cling to that thin string. Your obvious intent is to deceive by clouding the truth and disrupting the discussion.
And, again, no, it's not about my, "opinion of the facts." (Frankly, it's a pretty sure sign that someone has no argument left when they resort to, "opinions" as their last straw defense.) It's about you distorting and misrepresenting facts, about twisting the truth into lies, about dishonesty and an attempt to deceive in every sentence, every phrase, every word you write.
Anonymouse, lying would indicate false assertions, something you've already acknowledged I don't do, correct? But it doesn't keep you from saying it anyway.
Most of the time (perhaps all the times?) I've mentioned possible Apple issues that are similar to rumored Google problems, it's intended to get members here to think. For instance, when you were advocating that CEO's go to jail for breaking US laws, or even lose year's worth of revenue to teach them a lesson, you had only Google in mind didn't you? But by mentioning possible Apple issues with iTunes and licensing deals, it caused you to re-evaluate your thoughts on the subject. Would you really want Steve Jobs to go to prison as much as you'd like to see Eric Schmidt there if they've each broken trade or privacy laws?
Quite honestly I think it's those "inconvenient truths" (thank you Mr Gore) that bother you more than anything "spun" since they force you to question your opinions, or risk sounding like a fanboy instead of a reasoned forum member.
Do you remember professors in college forcing you to evaluate why you held certain beliefs by expecting you to support them with rational arguments? It's just as useful now as it was then IMHO. Every day has teaching moments if we're open to seeing them.
Anonymouse, lying would indicate false assertions, something you've already acknowledged I don't do, correct? But it doesn't keep you from saying it anyway.
No, lying is an intentional attempt to deceive, mislead or hide the truth, exactly what you are engaged in.
Since all I've said appears to go over your head, with your mind already made up no matter what's posted, this is one of those times where it's probably best to move on to more important things. Nothing more is gained by continuing to reply and there's just nothing else I can add to the discussion.
Since all I've said appears to go over your head, with your mind already made up no matter what's posted, this is one of those times where it's probably best to move on to more important things. Nothing more is gained by continuing to reply and there's just nothing else I can add to the discussion.
But it's all good.
No, it's not all good, unethical behavior such as yours should never be condoned or excused.
And, we both know that nothing has gone over my head, that I understand exactly what you are, and that you understand that everyone knows that your "strategic communication" is just another phrase for "fog of deceit".
But you are right that nothing is gained for you by continuing to reply -- you simply can't spin your way out -- and there has never been anything of substance that you added to any discussion here.
Android is so open! Open is better! Gee, it's, it's, like, open!
Idiots.
Android is open sourced. The Google brand is not. I see nothing hypocritical or wrong about Google's decision at all. They are defending their brand.
Motorola is free to use Skyhook if they want. But why should they expect to Google to roll over and just accept it. Why should they be allowed to make profits on the strength of Google's brand while undercutting Google? They can easily take the Android source code and develop their own OS. Nothing stopping them from doing that.
People cry fragmentation. And then cry some more when Google moves to reassert it's own brand.
And DED's walled garden argument is non-sensical too. Google may take away it's proprietary bits from an OEM that decides to undercut them. But it does not take away the right of the user to install what they want while Apple's walled garden specifically excludes non-approved apps. How's these concepts equate is beyond me.
Comments
Thanks for lightening the conversation Anonymouse. Yeah, I guess a lot of us probably think we're fair and balanced.
There's days my employees would swear I'm certifiably unbalanced.
Yeah, um, you've got absolutely no room to talk...
Actually, I have plenty of room to talk.
First of all, although I believe my comments are fair, and, more importantly, fairly represent the truth, I'm not pretending to be "balanced". Balance for the sake of balance is the enemy of the truth. Secondly Gatorguy, like Fox News, is being entirely disingenuous when he claims to be "fair and balanced". (And, you, in your criticisms, either are too, or have an uncritical, shallow understanding of the issues discussed here.) Just like Fox News, he's spinning misinformation as truth to support an agenda that isn't balanced in any way. That might be fine, there's nothing immoral about having an agenda, but it isn't fine when you misrepresent and attempt to hide or deny that agenda, or your interest in that agenda.
So, while you may disagree with me, while you may find me overly partisan, or overly critical, I'm not trying to pretend I'm something I'm not. I'm not spinning bullshit and trying to pretend that I'm impartial. I'm being totally honest about what I think, and I'm being totally critical toward those who deserve criticism. And one of the things I detest and believe deserves criticism is dishonesty and the people who traffic in it.
Secondly Gatorguy, like Fox News, is being entirely disingenuous when he claims to be "fair and balanced". (And, you, in your criticisms, either are too, or have an uncritical, shallow understanding of the issues discussed here.) Just like Fox News, he's spinning misinformation as truth to support an agenda that isn't balanced in any way.
Simply saying that I'm spreading misinformation is pretty easy. Is finding examples of it just as easy?
Anonymouse, it's fine that you don't agree with me. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all. And sometimes I believe you're being totally honest when you don't. Opinions vary, which doesn't anyone's automatically wrong. Some of your posts are wonderful additions to the subjuct being discussed. But there's been times your disagreement seems to me like stubbornness. Your mind is made up and no inconvenient fact is going to change it. Those are the times I ignore you and move on to something more important.
And perhaps that's the dishonesty you think you see, or would at least like to? I don't always say exactly what I think. I may have a little too much self-control at times when the situation might benefit from puffing up a little instead. But I just never see any need to lash out at other forum members, make lame accusations against those I don't agree with or assign them some derogatory pet name.
You have a different way of showing your disagreement with them. Perhaps that works well for you in your day-to-day dealings. As you said earlier, that may honestly be just the way you are. I'm sure you have a lot of people in your life who like you as is and wouldn't have you change one iota.
With all that said, your failure to acknowledge a statement as valid does not make it misinformation. It only means you don't agree, and that's fine whether you're being honest or not.
Simply saying that I'm spreading misinformation is pretty easy. Is finding examples of it just as easy? ...
Here, without looking hard at all, are some examples from just this thread, and not necessarily all examples that could be found in this thread...
I've never stated Android was "open", a term interpreted differently by different people for different purposes anyway. Without some control over the developement, you'd have a system like Linux. A great OS with little urgency to push features or a clear leader in organizing it's development. Why would you think it's a bad thing to exert some control?Closing it as completely as Apple does with iOS would obviously be the wrong move since there's several manufacturers involved. but some control is absolutely necessary IMO.
Of course the article is just based on claims made by an aggrieved party and their lawyers. I'm certain no one here considers a claim by someone to be the same as proof (unless it fits their views). Afterall, Casey Anthony's lawyers are said to readying a claim that it was Casey's Dad that's the real killer of her daughter.
I guess it must be true if a lawyer said it.
Let's look at this piece of sophistry. First, there's the explaining away of Google's claims that Android is open:
... "open", a term interpreted differently by different people for different purposes anyway.
So, we're told that, despite the fact that Google has constantly touted "openness" as The great virtue of Android, it doesn't matter, because it's a word that doesn't mean anything anyway. But, according to you, that doesn't matter because Google's control doesn't change anything, and it's good. Closing it, like iOS, would be bad. Oops, I think you just implied that Android is open.
Then, there's the part where you disparage lawyers in an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, even bringing up a case with no parallels to this as a further distraction. You also misrepresent what the article is about:
Of course the article is just based on claims made by an aggrieved party and their lawyers.
The article is actually about documents that, "detail Google's tight control of Android platform." It's not about "claims", which you wish to equate with wild, baseless accusations. It's about the actual evidence filed in the case to back up what seem to be very well founded accusations.
Do you really misunderstand the article and the issues that much? I don't think so. I think what we are seeing here from you is an attempt to spin this as much as possible in Google's favor -- i.e., damage control. This isn't a difference of opinion as you wish to portray it, this is a deliberate effort to misrepresent and mislead.
And the initial source for this could well be the paid smear campaign by Facebook. http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/12/f...-smear-google/
FWIW, there's a lawsuit filed (thread here somewhere) that claims Apple allows the same contact mining to occur without notifying users. And Apple has no setting to turn that off AFAIK.
Next, we have this little gem of misdirection. Unable to contradict the fact that Google is engaged in surreptitiously mining people's data in such a way that most people are unaware that it's going on or how to stop it, you attack the source of the information. A classic ad hominem defense: we should disregard this, despite all the evidence, because it comes from Facebook.
This, followed up by a tu quoque attack on Aple, designed to further distract from the issue, no doubt on the theory that the best defense is a good offense.
So, in just 2 posts, we see a number of attempts, and number of rhetorical techniques employed, to distract from and misrepresent the facts and the issues. We clearly see your strategy of attacking sources, denial of evidence, and backhanded attacks on others, all with the intent of spinning the information in Google's favor as much as you can get away with it. It's beyond obvious that you have a specific agenda here, and a specific mission to accomplish. What we don't know with absolute certainty is whether you are doing the on your own initiative, or whether you are employed for this purpose. But, my money is on the probability that you are a paid shill, which is yet another thing you aren't being honest about.
So, no, it's not about whether you agree with me or not. And it's not about not acknowledging the "validity" of your statements but labeling them misinformation: as we have seen, your statements and arguments aren't valid -- both in the sense that they are often composed of arguments that display logical fallacies and that they blatantly misrepresent facts -- but about the fact that your posts here amount to nothing more than spin doctoring.
Gotcha. And I've always thought misinformation was false information. Who knew?
Ah, now I understand. Misinformation means the type of facts or the way they're presented don't agree with your opinions.
Gotcha. And I've always thought misinformation was false information. Who knew?
Can't help yourself but to try to spin things can you?
No, misinformation in your case often means just throwing around a lot of innuendo, denying facts and misstating what was actual said, just like you did above
We know what you're doing here, and you don't have the integrity to be honest about it.
Ah, now I understand. Misinformation means the type of facts or the way they're presented don't agree with your opinions.
Gotcha. And I've always thought misinformation was false information. Who knew?
Actually I think you are just spreading misinformation. The source of the argument doesn't matter if the argument is valid. Simply pointing out the source of the argument is not discrediting the argument that was presented and actually lends credibility to the merit of the argument since there is no counter argument.
Somewhat related Anonymouse: Why do you have so much of an issue with "open"? I don't get the infatuation with whether Android is or isn't. Do you consider an "open OS" to be a good thing or bad thing? If the latter I don't think we may disagree at all that leveraging some control over Android development is good for consumers. You seem more upset that Android doesn't meet your definition of "open" and still wants to claim they are. Is it all about the word and not the OS itself?
Since you don't like or agree with some of what I write, feel free to call it spin. I think of it as strategic communication.
Still spinning away? You may think of it as "strategic communication", most of us call it lying.
But, yes, you are very careful to not post anything that's demonstrably false. As a consequence, you also never post anything that is demonstrably true. But, we've already covered this above, so it's sort of a pathetic attempt at a defense for you to cling to that thin string. Your obvious intent is to deceive by clouding the truth and disrupting the discussion.
And, again, no, it's not about my, "opinion of the facts." (Frankly, it's a pretty sure sign that someone has no argument left when they resort to, "opinions" as their last straw defense.) It's about you distorting and misrepresenting facts, about twisting the truth into lies, about dishonesty and an attempt to deceive in every sentence, every phrase, every word you write.
Most of the time (perhaps all the times?) I've mentioned possible Apple issues that are similar to rumored Google problems, it's intended to get members here to think. For instance, when you were advocating that CEO's go to jail for breaking US laws, or even lose year's worth of revenue to teach them a lesson, you had only Google in mind didn't you? But by mentioning possible Apple issues with iTunes and licensing deals, it caused you to re-evaluate your thoughts on the subject. Would you really want Steve Jobs to go to prison as much as you'd like to see Eric Schmidt there if they've each broken trade or privacy laws?
Quite honestly I think it's those "inconvenient truths" (thank you Mr Gore) that bother you more than anything "spun" since they force you to question your opinions, or risk sounding like a fanboy instead of a reasoned forum member.
Do you remember professors in college forcing you to evaluate why you held certain beliefs by expecting you to support them with rational arguments? It's just as useful now as it was then IMHO. Every day has teaching moments if we're open to seeing them.
Anonymouse, lying would indicate false assertions, something you've already acknowledged I don't do, correct? But it doesn't keep you from saying it anyway.
No, lying is an intentional attempt to deceive, mislead or hide the truth, exactly what you are engaged in.
But it's all good.
Since all I've said appears to go over your head, with your mind already made up no matter what's posted, this is one of those times where it's probably best to move on to more important things. Nothing more is gained by continuing to reply and there's just nothing else I can add to the discussion.
But it's all good.
No, it's not all good, unethical behavior such as yours should never be condoned or excused.
And, we both know that nothing has gone over my head, that I understand exactly what you are, and that you understand that everyone knows that your "strategic communication" is just another phrase for "fog of deceit".
But you are right that nothing is gained for you by continuing to reply -- you simply can't spin your way out -- and there has never been anything of substance that you added to any discussion here.
Android is so open! Open is better! Gee, it's, it's, like, open!
Idiots.
Android is open sourced. The Google brand is not. I see nothing hypocritical or wrong about Google's decision at all. They are defending their brand.
Motorola is free to use Skyhook if they want. But why should they expect to Google to roll over and just accept it. Why should they be allowed to make profits on the strength of Google's brand while undercutting Google? They can easily take the Android source code and develop their own OS. Nothing stopping them from doing that.
People cry fragmentation. And then cry some more when Google moves to reassert it's own brand.
And DED's walled garden argument is non-sensical too. Google may take away it's proprietary bits from an OEM that decides to undercut them. But it does not take away the right of the user to install what they want while Apple's walled garden specifically excludes non-approved apps. How's these concepts equate is beyond me.
Android is open sourced...
ORLY?