Fair post there, billranton.

Yes, I think we understand our disagreement - you set your limit there, I would think they would be wise being more open and more upfront about the order process in this early adopter scenario. I don't think they would really risk anything by giving us order updates on how things are broadly speaking progressing. Again, they are a small startup, it might even benefit them greatly to do so.

Bad press depends on how one defines the word. They have received actual bad press in Finland about the delays and silence (at least one major print media has written about it), but mostly I referred to online/blogosphere reaction. As I said, I'm not trying to make this sound bigger than it is - this is not the defining thing for Jolla's future, but in the context of a Jolla order tracking thread, I find this quite topical and a good suggestion to Jolla on how to improve community relations. I think it would be easy for them to improve those relations.

It is of course a good question, is it wise to explicitly refer to fallacies when responding to them - or is that just too inflammatory. It could be unwise. Sometimes it just gets tiresome to explain the mistake in the message, mentioning a fallacy is shorthand. I for one am not doing to sound somehow important.

Case in point: The most common type of Internet coversation fallacy is probably the strawman argument - in the case of your original message I responded to, I believe you presented a far more unrealistic picture of what people here are expecting of Jolla (and then responded to that false image), than they/we actually are expecting of them, thus making their/our argument sound quite a bit more unreasonable than it in reality was. The Apple sarcasm wasn't really my main issue with it, it was a side-track. I didn't explicitly refer to the fallacy by name, but it is why I responded to it.