Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
Let's say you see a company dump toxic waste in water. Do you think proposing a solution to move to a different country is in any way reasonable for the claim "this company is polluting the water" or somehow changes such claim at all? If you can't see the nonsense in your "proposed solution" then it's a really lost cause at this point.
Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
I don't care if you don't read, you're obviously not even adept at basic logic to begin with, and here's perfect proof of that.
Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
You are aware your hatred for Microsoft on an unrelated context is a logical fallacy right? We're talking about one context here, and I'm comparing Microsoft with Red Hat in this context only, pushing their stupid dependencies and polluting / locking the landscape. Nowhere was anything about patents stated, except in your brain.
I know you're not going to read it, but here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well (the "target" is Microsoft here, in your "logic")
Leave a comment: