Glass Houses..

  • From: "M.K. Chatterji" <chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: technocracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:21:33 -0500

As legal counsel to the class action suit filed by Mac lovers 
everywhere against the _original_ ad hominem attack, to wit:

".. so people forward it along happily as proof of their Macinrighteousness.."

we find it useful to remind the perpretrators to never forget where 
they came from.  (Jerry probably forwarded it in a spirit of levity 



Confucious say: Every man likes the smell of his own fart. (Be it 
Mac, Windows or *nix odors.)

>Poor attempt at an ad hominem.  Typical Mac Debate Team member. ;)  Chat,
>argue the arguement, not the person speaking.  :)
>The arguement remains the same: compare drivers of Land Rover Discovery IIs
>to <every other automobile>-using counterparts and what do you think you'll
>find?   Surprise surprise, Land Rover owners are better educated and make
>more money.  Does that make them a better truck off the trail than
>everything else?  Not hardly.  I run into $10k Jeep CJs with 8"
>lifts, axle lockers and 35" Super Swampers and custom suspensions that will
>trounce my truck over technical rock crawling challenges 8 days a week. 
>Does it mean my truck is better at carrying people long distances?  Nope,
>lots of SUVs are more comfortable and have more creature comforts...hell
>new Explorers have seats that fold themselves up now.   Why am I on my
>second Discovery II then?   Same reason you're on your Mac probably; I like
>it.   I don't have any need to justify it with "Land Rovers are the best,
>look, we're all smarter and richer than you fools!"  I simply dig it.  It
>looks cool.  It's got off-road prowess that is arguably the best in the SUV
>class, and big meaty tires.  It takes me camping and climbing.   It's rare
>enough and stylish enough that people come up to me on the street and
>compliment me on it out of the blue all the time, which I find increases
>my purchase satisfaction, not to mention how personable and family-like the
>Land Rover dealerships are.  There's nothing elitist about it, I bought
>this 2001 last December used on Ebay with 4k miles on it for $26,000...much
>cheaper than a new Explorer (base MSRP of the 2002 Explorer XLS is
>$37,700...the high-end model's MSRP is $46,925) and, by the way,
>WAAAAY cheaper than a Ford Expedition (with an MSRPs that range from
>$44,760 to a whopping $52,385!)   I don't see anything run-of-the-mill
>about Explorers other than perhaps their production numbers.   So what does
>the fact that Land Rover drivers are richer and better educated prove then
>anyway?  Nothing.  Nothing at all.  You could do the same thing with
>Explorer drivers vs <every other automobile> too...or Lexus drivers, or
>drivers of Mercedes G-wagons, or Hummer drivers.
>I guess to some, a DII is a status symbol, to me (and to Land Rover owners
>in just about every other country in the world), it's just a truck that
>does what I want it to (which, I'd bet, is far more than most SUV owners
>expect of their vehicles*), still, I'll accept it as one for the sake of
>this still doesn't change the fact that that study has zero
>value other than as marketing hook for Cnet News and, obviously, to fuel
>the Apple hyperbole machine, which seems to crave feces to sling at users
>of everything else.  Sorry if I seem particularly vociferous; all technical
>arguments aside, I think the thing that pisses me off most about the story
>itself is how blatantly manipulative ZDNet and Nielsen, et al. are
>and how successful they are at being that way. 
>* M.K. Chatterji (chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), on [07-16-02 00:56], wrote:
>>  Hey Neil,
>>  Is that kinda like buying an elitist LandRover instead of a
>>  run-of-the-mill (Windows) Explorer? Sorry, couldn't resist!
>>  -Chat
>>  >* Jerold Hargis (sigrah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx), on [07-15-02 08:23], wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  >Wow...what a news flash.
>>  >
>>  >"In other news, Neilsen/NetRatings released a study today that 
>>said that 95%
>  > >of all persons who own $35,000 gas guzzling car crunching 
>status-symbol SUVs
>>  >are better educated and richer than their <all other automobiles>-using
>>  >counterparts."
>>  >
>>  >Pick an expensive status symbol, any expensive status symbol, then
>  > >compare its users to users of everything else in the same general class
>>  >and what do you think you'll find?  This study is just more totally
>>  >meaningless Nielsen marketing drivel.  It has an eye-catching conclusion
>>  >that is bound to be pounced on by those naive enough to believe that those
>>  >with wealth or academic station choose only the "best" products to invest
>>  >in.  It's been my experience that the most wealthy and better-educated
>>  >persons I've ever met tend to spend their money on the most blatant
>>  >status-symbol crap I've ever seen just because it's shiny, or see-through,
>>  >or has a gold Lexus badge on it, or some other idiotic reason.  Notice that
>>  >the page doesn't even _link_ to the actual study itself?  Has anyone who's
>>  >forwarded this on actually_looked_ at their methodology?  No, of course
>>  > has a flashy headline, so people forward it along 
>>happily as proof of
>>  >their Macinrighteousness and Ian Fried, Staff Writer, CNET cackles
>>  >happily as he realizes his plan to increase his story's hit score 
>>is working
>>  >like a champ.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Neil
>>  >
>>  >   -- Rage Against The Machine, "Wake Up"
>>  >

Other related posts: