RE: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[David Schwartz]

> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 04:05:01PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> Couldn't agree more.  The part you don't seem to want to accept is that
> I don't agree with the merits of the arguments presented.  And my view
> is based on real world experience versus the theoretical views of the
> people making the arguments.

	That's just not a useful way to engage in rational debate. No rational
response is possible to "I can find no specific rational flaw in what you're
saying but based upon my experience it doesn't work". We have no access to
your experiences nor any way to validate them or debate them. It's no more
useful than "that's what you think". In fact, that's precisely what it is.

> That doesn't make me right, it just makes quite likely that I'm right
> based on past history.

	Not only doesn't it make you right, it doesn't even make your claims
useful. If based on your experience you acquired reasons why the argument is
wrong, then share those reasons. But "based on my experience that just
doesn't work" is not something anyone can rationally respond to.

> Experience almost always wins over theory.

	Only when that experience produces some sort of reasoning. Like, "in my
experience, businesses that don't have patent protection for their
developments don't work because it is too easy for a competitor to produce a
similar product at a lower cost since they're spared the cost of
innovation". That's a rational argument. But that's not what you're doing.
You're saying that you've considered his ideas, thought about them, and
rejected them because you don't like his credentials.

> Not always but so far noone has presenting anything compelling which
> suggests the theory beats experience in this case, IMO.

	Then there is no possibility of reasoning about the issue. All we can do is
keep trying things and see what works and what doesn't. So why are you
wasting our time?

	DS