You're wrong. Ed Bott has a track record of being very accurate with the facts.
You are, of course, welcome to produce some bulletproof factual examples (since you have just shown your opinions are not worth anything) to prove otherwise.
Calm down. He has been paid by Microsoft in the past so his opinions are hardly partisan and being economic with facts means that he often tells half a story, generally Microsofts. Like I said, I don't care either way, what I do care about is needless name calling and veiled ad hominems.
You mean, I should stand idly by while you casually malign the integrity of a good journalist? Sorry, I'm calling you out for bullshit. So far you score highly for innuendo and zero for producing any substantial facts or other concrete evidence.
Nice page, but I don't think _Simon realises he made an ad hominem attack on Ed Bott and ZDNet. _Simon's language is rather vague ("needless name calling" -- where exactly?) and sloppy (its where he means it's; "hardly partisan" - what does he think he means?), so his command of English may be part of his problem.
Either way, based on long experience, I always suspect that anyone who says "To be honest" really means "I am just about to lie".
Wow. Arrogant much? The truth is that you are not really interested in actually discussing the facts. Ed Bott was paid by Microsoft to promote Windows 7 in his blog back in 2008. His views are not partisan and his articles as a result are meritless. He, in simple words just for you, is biased in favor of Microsoft. ZDNet, much like other online IT tabloids like The Register, habitually publish nothing but trash that is designed for the sole purpose of advertising views. That this and other similar stories have recently featured so prominently has set alarm bells ringing.
To be honest, I really don't care what you think because so far you've done nothing but troll me. Using "sloppy" spelling as a reason to discredit what I said as well as calling me a liar? Come on, you surely can do better than that!
The truth is that you have yet to provide any facts to back up your smearing of Ed Bott and ZDNet.
> "His views are not partisan"
As I pointed out before, you have problems understanding and/or using the English language. Partisan means "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partisan
Now, the gist of your unsupported attack on Bott is that he is partisan, but you keep saying he is "not partisan".
See what I did there? I pointed out your mistake, and I supported it with independent factual evidence. If you want to take part in a grown up conversation, you should learn to do the same.
> "I really don't care what you think because so far you've done nothing but troll me."
Again, you obviously don't have a clue what trolling is. However, I reckon you can probably use Google to figure it out. Calling you out for bullshit is not trolling.
I have previously pointed out that you are attacking someone without producing any evidence, but you continually resort to ad hominem attacks (calling me a troll is another ad hominem attack, following your ad hominem attack on Bott).
You claim to be against ad hominem attacks and name calling (see above) but this is exactly what you are doing! This fits perfectly with the strategy of using the word "honest" when you are being dishonest.
Still, you can prove you are honest pretty easily, as follows....
Show us some evidence that you have a clue what you are talking about. Bott posts evidence of his expertise and (very high) professional standing, and I linked to that above. Where is yours?
Next, produce the evidence that Bott was "paid by Microsoft", and under what circumstances.
If you can't support your claim with evidence then, sadly, nobody has any alternative but to decide that you are a liar. It's not just me. Rational people want to hear rational arguments based on checkable facts. That's not too much to ask of you, is it?
> "The truth is that you are not really interested in actually discussing the facts."
Another ad hominem attack on me that attempts to divert the discussion away from the point. The truth is that I keep asking you for facts and you have not provided any. None.
So, are you going to keep posting bullshit replies? It might not be a wisest approach. As it is (and this is a factual observation) you're just making yourself look stupid.
You are, of course, welcome to produce some bulletproof factual examples (since you have just shown your opinions are not worth anything) to prove otherwise.