In article
<b0f8d675-1859-4f94-a6ca-d80cf8b1d922@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Edwin <thorne25@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Well, geez, did anyone realize Edwin was paying attention during all
> > those arguments against Windows?
>
> IOW, is Mitch the only one who's been in a coma all this time and
> ignored my counter-arguments as a result?
You've had no effective counter-arguments. No coma is necessary to
explain how you have screwed up again.
> > Or do you think he doesn't know those were the same reasons put
against
> > him when he kept remarking that Windows had a large market share?
>
> IOW, is anyone else here as stupid as Mitch, to not see I'm throwing
> Maccie's own arguments back in their faces?
No, sir, you are trying to use them to elevate the status of Zune.
That was clear to everyone -- you're just backpedaling.
> > Edwin, since no one was talking about quality _or_ quantity, those are
> > strange arguments to bring up.
>
> They were no less strange when they were used to defend low Mac market
> share.
Edwin, I didn't write that the arguments were strange. I wrote that
using them when the relevant topic wasn't quantity or quality of
strange. In other words, applying them right then was misguided and
showed you didn't understand the arguments or the reasoning.
(i.e., it's the _selection_ of those arguments that was strange, since
they are unrelated concepts to the thread!)
> > They are still right, it's just that you
> > haven't established which device has better quality.
>
> Just as Maccies never established better quality for the Mac.
Actually, Mac users have shown that in MANY ways.
You showed only that those reasons didn't matter to you.
> > The arguments mean that the quality device can have any share of the
> > market -- they do not mean that the lowest-market share device is
> > always the highest quality one.
>
> It takes an Apple logo to make that true, eh? LOL!
Yes, you laugh because you don't understand the argument. It isn't
about Apple products at all, fool. Read it again.
|
