[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That won't be good enough. Not nearly. The American
electorate is evenly split. The world electorate is
expressing a displeasure. While these are not logically
conjunctive, they are symbolically and it is the semiotic
effect that creates superstitious behavior. Here is an
example. While in the makeup room preparing to go on
stage last week, a Marine recruit, still in high school
but about to go to the real thing, made the bold statement
that "people think the Internet was invented by Americans,
but it was really invented at CERN". That's an easy one
to refute because the kid is mixing up technologies, slapping
a label on them, and confidently working from that misinformation.
Now where did he get this information? From the Web. From
those who do have an agenda if nothing more than trying to
assert they have 'inside information'.
That's the way it works. Smart knowledgeable people can
refute it but he doesn't believe them because he believes
he has 'inside information'. This is the classic routine
known as Tootsie Fruitsie (See "A Day At The Races" The
Marx Brothers). It is exploited everyday in marketing,
sales and other political pursuits.
So it is necessary to do more than say "Bollox". Some
patience and attention to detail is needed. If we don't
get it from the press, we have to state it where the
press hangs out. XML-Dev is one of those places. Sometimes
a vital kernel of fact drops from this and that is always
worth saving.
So I have to respectfully disagree with you. Had the article
not been forwarded to me for comment, I wouldn't have noticed.
Because it was and from someone who blogs prominently, I thought
it a good idea to get experts to look it over. As in open source,
the more smart eyes, the better.
len
From: Peter Hunsberger [mailto:peter.hunsberger@gmail.com]
If anything is needed here (and
it's not clear that there is anything needed) it is for the people
with the knowledge of the cited technologies and companies to stand up
and say "this is nonsense". Nothing more; a point by point rebuttal
is impossible since none of the "points" are coherent enough for real
true rebuttal.
|
