Geographic restrictions - a different perspective

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by taustin

In the nearly 20 years I've been reading Charlie on Usenet and his blog, I've never noted any tendency to accept anything at face value. He is, in fact, a crank. A very outspoken crank who doesn't accept much of anything without something more than "the monkeys that fly out of my butt told me so." Again, I find him far more credible than anybody here. He doesn't speak without knowing what he's talking about.

Great. This means you have a personal opinion on a source that you trust.

Your personal opinion does not apply to the rest of us. We have different sources and different opinions. I think we can express those opinions without you saying we're calling your friend a liar. (Unless someone called Stross out directly as a liar and I missed that. But I saw someone say that industry insiders are generally biased. Which is another thing entirely from liar.)

And if I pull one of my favorite authors out -- or my mum! -- and say I believe them when they say the opposite of what your personal opinion person says, I fully support your decision to be all "yeeeeeeah, I'ma take a pass on that."

[taustin]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

But I saw someone say that industry insiders are generally biased. Which is another thing entirely from liar.)

Which is different from "I saw someone who is an industry insider say such-and-such"?

How is it that you're doing anything differently than what you're harping at me for doing, exactly?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by taustin

Which is different from "I saw someone who is an industry insider say such-and-such"?

How is it that you're doing anything differently than what you're harping at me for doing, exactly?

I don't even understand this post, so I'm not sure how to respond. Uh, sorry?

[taustin]

You've heard that industry insiders are biased. I've heard otherwise. I've named my source, and his writings are extensive and available online. I have no idea where you got your information from. Industry insiders at least have the opportunity to know what they'ure talking about. And you dismiss them without - by your own admission - even having read what they've written on the subject.

I'm done with you.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taustin

Charlie Stross has little reason to lie to advance his publisher's agenda. In fact, quite the contrary.

And he does not say that physical costs are 10% of total.

[HarleyB]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I think we can express those opinions without you saying we're calling your friend a liar. (Unless someone called Stross out directly as a liar and I missed that. But I saw someone say that industry insiders are generally biased. Which is another thing entirely from liar.)

taustin at the risk of upsetting your further I think ana was refering to your post #85 where Blue Tyson said that industry insiders were biased and you replied that Stross had no reason to lie.
Her point (and I agree) is that calling someone biased is NOT the same as calling them a liar.

[taustin]

I no longer really care, and never actually did, since this is not what this thread is about.