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
anyway!)
Macindignantly,
-Chat
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 argument...it 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.
>
>
>Neil
>*http://antediluvian.org/caine/photos/index.cgi?mode=album&album=RoverPics
>
>
>
>* 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:
>> >> http://news.com.com/2102-1040-943519.html
>> >
>> >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
>> >not...it has a flashy headline, so people forward it along
>>happily as proof of
>> >their Macinrighteousness and Ian Fried, Staff Writer, CNET News.com cackles
>> >happily as he realizes his plan to increase his story's hit score
>>is working
>> >like a champ.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Neil
>> >
>> >"WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!"
>> > -- Rage Against The Machine, "Wake Up"
>> >
>>
>>
Other related posts:
