Why shouldn't rhetoric and propaganda count?
It was Ballmer's choice to sacrifice his argument to petty propaganda. And he continued it on the next day... Those defending Ballmer say: "He means all users of any digital music..." Strange, he brought up the iPod immediately after referring to how long DRM has been in the OS (and presumably how affective it is since that's a huge benefit that Apple doesn't have, ha, ha, ha). Shouldn't the logical answer have been: the most common format on Windows PCs is STOLEN. The next day when asked to clarify, after it being in many major papers and every tech site and blog in the world, he said he doesn't remember. When asked what type of mp3 player his son has, he sayed: "He doesn't, he has a WMA player." In other words, when he wants consumers to be critical, he uses the iPod's success. When he wants people to actually believe that Microsoft is strong in this game, he claims his son doesn't have an mp3 player (though I'm sure it does) but a WMA player.
It's the same sort of rhetorical game they were playing with Linux... calling all open source a cancer, and then a week later saying, we don't have a problem with open source, it's the GPL.
Or the same rhetorical games the Bush administration is playing with Iraq, Afghanistan, and terrorism.
Rhetoric and Propaganda certainly do matter even if you believe you can extract some logical and well meaning argument from beneath the pile of crap.
If rhetoric and propaganda did not matter, than Ballmer shouldn't always be spewing it, leaving his pants down, ripe for cirticism. If he has an intelligent and logical argument, he should just make it. However, he clearly doesn't, and thus, he resorts to this twaddle.
Also, I find it hilarious you think Microsoft's CEO's words do not matter. Who's words matter then? Why is the rhetoric of Steve Jobs relevent to you when the facts could be discussed rather than his words?
This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 14:04.
|