Erm, please let's avoid ad hominem type of arguments, shall we? Look, YoDude, the bottom line is I wasn't talking to you at all. You are the one who addressed me directly and opened the dalogue with me. I think I can be excused for mistaking a line like this plus all the other aggresive defense that went along with that selfsame post (which I will undoubtedly be attacked for by not quoting here) , as someone defending their original argument/post. Woe betide me to realize that I was responding merely to some paranoid, Tourettes-style post-associator. I've made myself clear, my post was four posts away from yours, and the 20th post in the entire thread - why on earth would you make the connection that I was speaking to you directly? Why, for that matter, you instead of any of the other previous 19 posts? Let alone the original post?! No, I'm sorry, it was my mistake to connect a direct address to me and my words to what might have been (ought to have been?) the Original Poster, seeking to defend his post. Again, my apologies. I hereby recuse myself from this discussion, prior statements notwithstanding.
I don't know how you're using отдел агитации и пропаганды (agitprop) or to whom you're applying it to. The posts between yours and my last one are not clear on this as well. Hitting the "Quote & Reply" button before a post helps sometimes. ...(more later)...
Agitprop ultimately means agitation propoganda, and I'm applying it to you! ...<snip> a long winded and patronozing explanation of what the word means, but as it turns out, you confused me with someone else ...</snip> Happy propagandizing, friend! 8^)
Could you please link to or at least quote my post where you believe I am doing whatever it is you think I'm doing and please post why you think so.
Originally Posted by Uwe Could you please link to or at least quote my post where you believe I am doing whatever it is you think I'm doing and please post why you think so. Sure. (Sorry about being so abstruse, BTW. Bad habit. I'll try to be more plain hereafter.) Here you are, the content of your original post that I am addressing, albeit editied for purposes of length and removal of needless redundant message. Originally Posted by Uwe All, my new device is an HTC Desire running on Android 2.1 / HTC Sense and I won't switch back to the N900. <snip> Where are you going to? In order for me to simplify things for you, maybe you will allow me to quote another user who I think hits the nail right on the head in his/her analysis. That user writes: And in lieu of further exhaustive explanations on my part, please allow me to direct you to some more links for everyone's edification regarding that user's point. Loaded question, Loaded language Both of these concepts, I might add, are forms of overtly persuasive language, and when used for a particular purpose, can be considered as propoganda. So, whether you are truly as disingenuous as you are presenting yourself to be, or not, you should still understand that a) coming onto a message board that exists for the purpose of providing a forum for a particular product, and to then b) proceed to discredit that product, and to then c) espouse a competitor's product, and to d) subsequently implore that the users of said forum should seriously consider abandoning their particular product, in favor of the product you are espousing: all of this amounts to shilling (yes, good word! but not for Nokia, you big silly! rather for the competitor's product, isn't it obvious?). To summarize today's lesson: you are quite possibly shilling for a competitor using a technique known as stealth marketing by introducing agitprop to demoralize and confuse forum users, using a method known as loaded language. Class dismissed!
All, my new device is an HTC Desire running on Android 2.1 / HTC Sense and I won't switch back to the N900. <snip> Where are you going to?
oldpmaguy: While I got a chuckle out of your post, something is wrong. On my screen: But yet, in your post: So, your entire response seems to be directed to the wrong person. Uwe is doing the propaganda, yes. YoDude - OTOH (who asked that question, and who I think you wrongfully directed the "you") - has not that I've seen. I think you're confusing names .
<snip> appology to fatalsaint </snip> So the only question left to ask is, Why was YoDude so adamantly defensive regarding my "agitprop" remark? His was response #15, and mine was response #19. I would have assumed that by not quoting the OP, it was understood that I was replying to the thread's main intent, and not responding to anyone's response in particular. It is indeed odd that YoDude chose my comment to focus on as a potential reply to his own response - I can se no clear reason for that. Oh well, I admit being confused, but only by someone who is themself confused. I promise I will try and do better next time. And thank you, fatalsaint, for calling my attention to my error...
....However, those who can't or wont learn make a lot of noise before they either pass out or move on. To tolerate this noise you have to filter out or squawk the BS. In doing so you may also get an indication as to why some have a problem with the device. The forum system works if you pay attention. For instance: Code: POST: "I'm going to piss into the wind" REPLY: "Make sure the wind is at your back" My thoughts on the above^ exchange are first: WTF? And then: This is a very good illustration of how some people have trouble understanding even simple things that can be explained precisely with only one dang sentence.
POST: "I'm going to piss into the wind" REPLY: "Make sure the wind is at your back"