Slashdot Mirror
Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft
Its happened before, but with the recent MS happenings,
MacWeek,
MSNBC and to a certain extent Wired have written stories based largely on Slashdot comments: Specifically those that appeared on
Microsoft Addresses World, Instant Legal Analysis and
Microsoft==Monopoly. The mainstream media now thinks that picking a few comments from a thread on Slashdot is a story (of course they often don't properly credit or link them). More interesting is that by picking a few extreme comments, or poking fun of "Anonymous Coward" that they somehow have the pulse of Slashdot as a whole.
Regardless, they are watching, its fascinating to see what they think we think.
I think slashdot is becoming a regular resource for some journalists. Is this a problem? Perhaps it's not the best idea if you're a journalist, but it can be good for the community as a whole.
Journalists ought to work to find out all they can about a story, and certainly the geeks reaction as gauged by slashdot is part of that. It's not the whole story, but it's part of it.
What does it mean for slashdot users? I think we ought to keep in mind that things you say here are taken to represent a community of linux users. No one should jump to the conclusion that any of us speak for anyone else, but it's easy to see general trends in controversial stories.
I guess it also means we ought to congratulate Rob & co, they've worked hard to make this a legitimate news site and I believe (and have believed for awhile) that they are successful.
-Scott
what we read in mass media about /. isn't necessarily what they think we think. It's what they think people would like to read about us thinking. A lot (most?) of the time they're the same thing, though
It is kind of funny that /. would have this opinion, since a lot of your content is taken from other sites.
Despite the number of offtopic or flamebait comments, /. does represent a significant base of people who are able to think, and who can express their ideas. Therefore it's entirely reasonable for news stories to quote slashdotters. /. for the same reason I do; to get the opinions (and points of view) of others. I've had to change my opinion on several topics based on information or POVs of others, and I hope I've convinced one or two people to consider my position on various topics. /. comments, I wouldn't be able to resist doing it either.
Journos read
As for taking the piss out of ACs: if I were writing an article which featured
Slashdot on Mainstream Media on Slashdot and Microsoft
slashdot broke my sig
What a wonderful tool for your average hack - 10 Slashdot comments from recent times - there is bound to be something in there that can be totally taken out of context and misquoted. I meta moderate daily (that sounds rude now that I come to read it) and sometimes it can be quite funny to read a comment taken out of it's thread - however while funny it also fails to bring the nature of the thread across and can result in a diametrically opposite meaning.
Seriously though - the mainstream media is not necessarily something to worry about as the people who cover the news properly for the people who are truly affected are getting the stories right. It doesn't really matter what Joe Public thinks as he doesn't have any say in the matter - however your (Computer Weekly)/(Insert Foreign Computing Mag Here) [delete as appropriate] reader is more likely to be the sort of person who makes decisions for more than one persons IT needs - these are the people who can affect the market and these are the people who matter.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
A good example is when JFK was giving his speech in Berlin and said at the end 'I am a jelly donut' in german (trying to say 'I am from Berlin'). It was all in context... just think if suddenly Wired had JFK on the cover with the title 'I am a donut: Your future life in a donut-based e-commerce.'
Anyway, as long as they give the URL's to where they got the quotes, I think it's a good thing for the community.
Now about that singles forum on slashdot.... `8r)
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
From the MSNBC article...
/. and therefore it would be incorrect to call me a /. correspondent)
"Tough for Slashdotters to pick between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote.
Which is remarkably similar to comments from this posting. It would seem that my comments (Comments are owned by the Poster.) have been taken and reproduced without my permission. Not to mention edited and taken out of context from a comment made in jest (this was a reply to the story that the ruling would be out in a few hours, and included a smily).
So my comments were stolen, changed and reused without permission when they are clearly owned by me and contact information was easily available.
Legal recourse? Should I bitch and moan? e-mail bomb msnbc?(j/k) Ask for my cut of the ad revenue from that page? This is more of a curiosity, but I am still taken aback that someone would so blatantly steal another's idea without attribution (I am not paid by
+&x
Just finished reading the MSNBC article. I hardly see why they even RAN it. What was it? A few quotes from /., MSNBC and AOL forums. None of them indicated what the majority thought. They ranged from "Yeah, MS Sucks" to "The DOJ should bugger off!"
/. even more 'out there' and 'against the flow.' Sure, it's between-the-lines, but it's still there.
/.'ing the MSNBC poll running with that article? It was 33/33/33 between MS is a good monopoly/MS is an evil monopoly/MS is not a monopoly. I seriously wonder how 33% of voters could know about the FOF and still not believe it.
None of them were attributed to author. No indication of context or what the consensus of the forum was there either. Strangely though, the pro-MS type quotes ("DOJ go home!"-style ones) were given to the AOL/MSNBC groups. I suppose they just wanted to make
And while we're up, who feels like
Slashdot's reporting on mainstream media is fair in a way that their reporting on us isn't, because Slashdot includes the link to their content and you're expected to look for yourself. The mainstream media very clearly *don't* expect you to go and look, they want you to take their word for it, and usually they don't even do the easy, obvious thing of including the hyperlink. I can only conclude that they'd much rather you weren't in a position to conveniently compare their description of anything with the thing itself.
Let's see those hyperlinks please. And not just to the head of the story - link to every comment you've exerpted, so we can see the words you quote in context, and the replies it garnered. True, it will make it easier for us to judge the quality of the reporting, but if you would like to be seen to be honest then it's just a burden you'll have to bear.
(Mike@ABC - if you're reading this, I'd love to know what you think!)
--
Xenu loves you!
since a lot of your content is taken from other sites.
/. is the comments. So all the actual good reading content is in fact generated by /.'s readers. Look ma, truly interactive media.
What is discussed might be located on other sites, but the reason I read
+&x
This is fine and good in a print media, but this isn't print. This is online media. HTML was designed with a great and glorious thing called the "hyperlink." There is no reason why they couldn't use it (in addition to what you said). If they are worried about liabilty (sad, but probable), they can disclaim all off-site links. Most do anyway.
ufdraco
I'm starting to get really tired of the press paying the most attention to the hotheads and ignoring reasonable voices. I'm also getting fairly tired of hotheads on /. shooting themselves (and all of us) in the foot. The fact is that the judge did know what he was talking about. At THIS TIME and from the normal user's perspective linux and BeOS and *BSD and the others are, in fact, fringe OS's. I love my linux server, but even I still use Windoze for most of my day-to-day computer use. The OS may be more prone to crashing, but it is much more stream-lined from a user perspective. As far as user-interface is concerned unix just can't compete with Windoze. The apps I use are faster and, by and large, more stable in Windoze. IE5 almost never crashes, and usually appears pretty much instantly when I launch it. I can't even come close to saying either of these things for Netscape in Linux. At this point, the software available makes Win by far the best choice for normal computer users. This is the case because Microsoft DOES have a monopoly on the consumer operating system market. That has made it impractical for most software developers to release unix versions of their software. This is slowly changing, but in the context of this day and age, the finding of facts is absolutely accurate. (Note: the fof (at least the parts I've read quoted) does not really say anything about the comparative quality of the OS's.)
Anybody ever wonder why Jean-Louis Gasse of Be, Inc. made a conscious and public decision NOT to try to compete with Microsoft? Why would somebody choose to accept a niche market with a versatile product?
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Yes, there are issues with quoting Anonymous Coward and wondering who he is...
Yes, there are issues with how they are taking a shortcut by just going to slashdot...
BUT... think about all the times that you've read a mainstream media article which didn't seem to have much sense of how it really was. At least now, we have the opportunity to provide these people with the right information.
Now if only FUD master John C. Dvorak would get a clue...
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Who says they're not all doing there research. During the RedHat IPO stuff I got these 2 messages...
* *
..., or e-mail me with a number to reach you at.
* * * **
***********************************************
Hi--I'm a reporter from Wired News working on an article about RedHat's
offer to sell shares at the IPO price to members of the open source
community. Judging by the thread and poll on slashdot, and some e-mails
I've gotten, there's some concern about getting access to the offer.
If you have a minute, I'd like to talk to you about this. I can be reached
at
Thanks,
Polly Sprenger
Wired News
***********************************************
My name is Randy Smith and I'm a reporter for the Wall Street Journal and I
was wondering if I could talk to you for a possible story on the Red Hat
stock allocation. I saw your posting on "Slashdot." My phone number is....
***********************************************
-Al-
This (a)convinced the average TV-watching American that the movement against the Vietnam War was populated entirely by weirdos, because that's what they saw on TV; (b)encouraged people in the antiwar movement to act more scruffy and dangerous, because they confused getting their images on TV with having an impact on public opinion.
For more details, see Todd Gitlin's book, The Whole World is Watching.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
As much as I think journalistic standards and ethics have jumped into the shitter recently, I should admit that online news sites have far more more fluffy and "throw-a-away" content than in the real world. It's just the nature of feeling you need to throw together a story immediately, since people will see it immediately (even faster than Tv). The really sad thing is that online journalists are, for some inexplicable reason, following the tradition of Tv reporters when it comes to sampling opinions and quoting "the peons" as they call us. HTML news reports are great places to lay out, or at least link to, really sophisticated, nuanced arguments, but instead we're still stuck with soundbytes in a medium currently without sound. There's also still this idea that "getting every side" means that you CANNOT go into depth on issues, or quote people who do, because then you have the potential for one side to look better than the other. "DOJ sucks" and "M$ sucks" are safe. And isn't that what news is all about?
No...
I'm wondering if we should really be surprised by this or not? ZDNet has proven itself to be in MS's pocket many times in the past, and MSNBC, well, the MS isnt there just to make it look good.
The subversive way they're writing these articles, no links, no attribution to author, only taking the extreme points of view, etc. just makes me belive that they're trying to spin it all and make us all look like a bunch of jerks.
I saw many posts about this only being a Finding of Fact and not a verdic which were, rightly so, moderated up, and neither of these articles mentioned that. No mention about the moderation score of the quotes mentioned, or even the moderation scheme.
Its just a downplay spin, more FUD for the fire, but this time not about Linux, but its users and advocates. I suppose MS is taking the position that if you cant FUD off the product, FUD off the people who use it. I think we need to be very careful about this in the future.
-- iCEBaLM
So, why do all these "reputable" news organizations look to slashdot for analysis? There are several reasons, I suppose.
:) But the effect is obvious, Slashdot is very important in Tech reporting.
1. The speed at which analysis is collected. Usually, Slashdot posts news before it hits ALL of the mainstream outlets, and has been commented on by members of the Slashdot community.
2. The value of the analysis. Except for the flamebait and Anonymous Coward posts, people from all walks of life add valuble comments. Remember, many of us work in the industry. It's almost like instant insider analysis.
3. Slashdot is focused. For the most part, Slashdot reports on only the High Tech news, or things related to it. Granted, there is a spin to it, but that's life on any web site. People know they can get good info on Tech here, so they come.
4. Slashdot isn't boring. There's more than enough humor here that our would-be journalist won't go back with a dry, boring article. Maybe that's where those flamebait posts fit in.
Maybe I'm looking into this too much, and they just like CmdrTaco's style. It's entirely possible.
I understand that Slashdot is, technically, a "free forum," where people write things for others to read, but it clearly states down at the bottom of the page that "Comments are owned by the Poster."
So I really don't see how they can just take comments from Slashdot and make a news story out of them (from which both MSNBC and the author, Alan Boyle, are profiting) without first asking for the permission of the comments' authors.
Especially in a story such as the one on MSNBC, in which the comments are the story, I strongly feel that the posters' permission should be granted before the comments are mashed up and spit out in a for-profit form. And if Alan Boyle is making money from my comments, he should also be paying me.
I doubt the media will ever reimburse us for our comments, regardless of what we say, but is it so hard for them to ask permission first? I mean, people can get sued now for posting things to financial message boards, so maybe we can sue MSNBC for exploiting our comments. Well... maybe not.
PS - None of my comments were used in any of the stories.
rooooar
The one quoted Slashdot comment (something to the effect of "Slap them sanctions on now") sounded just as frivolous and poorly-considered as the ones from AOL and MSNBC message areas. There was no representation of the depth and insight that Slashdot can rightfully pride itself on.
Like, that was majorly schwag, d00d. I wuz p1553d.
I can see the fnords!
IANAL but:
As quasi-traditional (rich, establisment) media, they are on pretty solid ground claiming that any limited quoting that they're doing is fair use.
Paradoxically, the very thing that most Slashdotters think makes much more sense - linking not just to
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Look, don't get angry that they are using your posts.
:-)
You can't sue them. Fair use allows quoting. Admittedly they should attribute the quote to you, but there's nothing that requires them to do so in a specific manner. "Howdy," said one guy on Slashdot is attribution enough for the law. The fact is that when you say something in a public forum, it is then public. Deal with it.
I don't see why anyone would be angry (as many commenters seem to be) in the first place. Guess what people, that means they're listening! Certainly took 'em long enough.
Instead of focusing on this new power for itself, perhaps we should focus on making all our comments a little more well-reasoned and thought out. After all, the world (via the media) may be paying attention to what you say.
Stop shooting from the hip so much. THINK about what you say, and make sure that it's your honest opinion. Opinions are good, disagreeing opinions are even better. But when what you say really gets the point across, more people will read it.
(You realize I'm just angling for a major news organization to quote me, don't you?
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Is that where the 'Net has left us (and will leave the rest of the world when they catch up:) ?
+&x
After many unanswered phone calls and requests for an interview, the online celebrity Anonymous Coward was quoted as saying:
"First Post!!"
Industry pundits have not been able to agree on the meaning of this cryptic response to the Microsoft = Monopoly ruling. Though technology expert John C. Dvorak stated that this may be a comment of outrage directed at the President of the United States rather than Bill Gates. Mr. Coward could not be reached for further comment.
In other news, the online community is believed to be rediscovering their spiritual roots, as observed in the slashdot readerships frequent references to Karma. Church officials claim that this is probably brought on by the upcoming end of the millenium.
Ima Freud, a psychologist at Deutchmacher University, claims that references to Karma are an attempt at closure in the wake of the Columbine Masacre, which shook the close-knit geek community to it's core earlier this year.
Executives at Warner Brothers deny that the concern with one's Karma, as demonstrated by members of the Slashdot cult, is actually a clendestine publicity stunt to promote End of Days staring Arnold Shwarzenegger. Mr. Shwarzenegger did not return phone calls.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
You saw quotes? That's funny, all I saw were comments seperated by "?". Since I don't read a question mark as a quote, the comments were not quoted but plagarized as far as I'm concerned...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
P.S. There are absolutely, definitely NO rumours, whatsoever that CmdrTaco is due to appear on both Oprah and Jerry Springer. It is also COMPLETELY unfounded that the other two guests for JS are Bill Gates and a stuffed penguin.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
But think of it this way too
By doing this, Andover is profiting (deservedly most would argue - IMO more power to them
Romantic us (/.) vs. them (everyone else - especially mainstream media) feelings seem terribly antiquated to me, given the environment.
/.'ers, like open source contributers, should realise (and be happy with the fact) that any information that they concentrate or contribute is open to further use for profit in one form or another.
I fervently hope this will not dissuade them or others to contribute further in the future.
Just Be aware. We need more warez.
.abulafia
Time flies like an arrow -- Fruit flies like a banana
This question was raised here two months ago and although there were no huge surprises, some answers have been quite interesting. One of the main motives is the desire to help people. It is remarkable that this is usually the first reason that people think of but it is also the reason that many of them feel uncomfortable about. But this altruism can be viewed in a different way: Nothing is really given away because you just help reestablishing the original, free, status. To quote Phil Garcia who put it in a good way: "I work on free software because the practice of restricting what people can do with software goes against my principles. [...] Legal restrictions on software effectively take an unlimited resource and turn them into a limited one." What personally fascinates me every time I think about it is the fact that it is also an equally good idea to work on Free Software for absolutely non-altruistic reasons; but explaining this would lead to far off the path at this point.
Besides altruism there are several other big reasons why people work on Free Software. Very high on the list also is the desire to write software that makes sense and gets used. This may sound a little weird at first, but working on Free Software gives developers a satisfaction that is extremely rare when working on proprietary software. To say it in Francesco Potortis words: "I like programming and doing real things, i.e. things that work. Programming for free software is not wasted time, as my work will be used by may people."
Another approach deliberately ignores all social and altruistic sides and focuses solely on the technical part of it. Its followers see software as a mere tool comparable to a medical procedure or a legal proceeding. This has been suggested by Jimen Ching: "We need to view software as a tool, not merely a collection of expressions of an idea. When we do this, then it is natural that software should be free. I mean free as in freedom, not price."
Long Live GNU and Linux for delivering the goods!
Waiting for this breaking story...
We now have a credible source to reveal the identity of the badly-moderated, yet vocal, Slashdot user 'Anonymous Coward.'
"Remember what they told us in last week's meeting, Slashdot mention = Slashdot effect = banner revenues!"
Have you _EVER_ considered that is how the average non-Linux user views Slashdot? Everyone I know that just reads the stories, that doesn't respond, and that don't use Linux view all the Open Source and Linux people the same way as did ZDNet. This is the kind of publicy you get for Linux, whether you like it or not. This is not soley "ZD yellow journalism", this is how the rest of the non-Linux community views the Linux community. I'm frankly disgusted and ashamed at the way Slashdot acted in response to the Microsoft ruling.
..but I don't think it quite falls under this. Excerpting for a book review or critiqe is a special case, as in a classroom example. In this case actual content for MSNBC (a for-profit compnay) was taken w/o my permission. So here's the e-mail I wrote and am awaiting a response.(I found the author's e-mail on a different story)
/.'s reaction to the MS verdict, you wrote..
/. at this location.
5 1216&cid=132
------
Alan,
In your recent article on
"Tough for Slashdotters to pick between between two (roughly) equivalent evils: Microsoft and the U.S. government," one correspondent wrote."
Which are my comments first made on
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/11/05/09
What I would like to know is why my comment was stolen, edited, and reprinted without my permission. Each page on Slashdot clearly states "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster." and this is the agreement under which my comments were submitted.
It would not bother me nearly as much if you had contacted me, not edited the comment or at least attibuted the comment by name. As it stands the comment, originally made in jest, was edited and reused in another context. In reading the original comment one's eyes MUST pass over a link that goes straight to my e-mail address (minus a couple spaces) so I know there was a conscious decision to NOT contact me for permission.
I am unhappy that such action has been taken and am anxious to hear your reply.
Sincerely,
Roy Taylor
-------
Roy/Wah, get it?
+&x
..who'da thunk it?
Within 5 minutes of sending the above e-mail I received a phone call from Alan Boyle (the editor of the original article). We talked for a few minutes about the weather, slashdot, and his grandkids, no wait....
Anyway, I requested that he remove my comment from the story (not a bad idea since it wasn't even a sentence to begin with) and he said he would be happy to. He also said that the purpose of the article was to point people towards the lively discussion that occurs here. Nice guy.
This goes down as the day I challenged MS(NBC) and won, yippee! hehe
+&x
TV reporters covering rallies against the Vietnam War would usually point their cameras at the scruffy hippies or the people waving Vietcong flags, and not at the protesters who looked like normal college students.
...they confused getting their images on TV with having an impact on public opinion.
Since one poster's comments look about like the next, and no one can tell who's a "scruffy hippie" and who's a necktie-wearing industry insider (not to mention the scruffy industry insiders) just from their text, how are the mainstream media going to determine whose posts to report on? Are ALL CAPS, obscenties, and anonymous posts the text equivalent of long hair, sandals and love beads?
Oh, they had an impact on public opinion all right. It just wasn't the sort of impact they wanted.
"Ich Bin Ein Auslander" is the excellent first track on "Dos Dedos Mis Amigos" by Pop Will Eat Itself; it's about the rise of the far right, though of course the name is inspired by JFK's famous quote. In fact everything by this band is wonderful and you should go out and get it all.
--
Xenu loves you!
In my opinion, the journalizm community has a deep understanding and commitment to copyright and fair use issues. If the comments were not given due credit, it is probably because it was not clear enough what comprises due credit. The reputation and continued success of a journalist depends on his fair treatment of sources. If we make it clear exactly what the Slashdot community considers fair treatment, I beleive that most reporters will respect it.
Here are some thoughts for possible fair use guidelines:
- http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/08/122
6 255&mode=thread
(where the date/unique number is replaced with the appropriate value).- http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=c
m drtaco
(where the text following "nick" is replace by the user's nickname). Please do not link to the poster's email address, even if it appears in the post.- "Discussion title." Slashdot Discussion. [Accessed date].
For example,To cite a post, use the format
- Poster Name, "Post Title," opinion expressed in Slashdot Discussion "Discussion title." [Accessed date].
For example,We are witnessing what are known as suits. Behind all the formalwear, gold plated pens, and Florsheim shoes there is only a picture of slashdotters as unemployed biologists who are fascinated by tinkering with basic sciences but offer little justification for stating as sources. To the suit we're all supposed to be flipping hamburgers and cleaning toilets so there's little lost, much gained in not referencing us.
"Linux aficionados who are applauding US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's bitter denunciation of their archrival Microsoft might want to read the fine print first. In the 207-page preliminary ruling, Jackson says that "fringe" operating systems like Linux are destined for continued niche market status."
... that a sufficient number of open source developers will commit to developing and continually updating the large variety of applications that an operating system would need to attract in order to present a significant number of users with a viable alternative to Windows," Jackson predicted." (Emphasis mine)
I'm still applauding. The fact is, Linux does not have what it needs to be a good desktop OS right now. I can't get Opera, or a reasonably stable version of NS under Linux (NS is even more stable under Windows, which is scarey). But Linux does have what I need to use it as my firewall, and to develop for, etc. It's very much a WIP (Work In Progress), but it's only going to get better. And if you do compare the ratio of x86 PCs running Windows to x86 PCs running Linux, then you can also call it a fringe based on that ratio (as would be *BSD, OS/2, and any other x86 OS).
"When Judge Jackson said: "It is unlikely
He was right. How many people do you know (remember the intelligence factor applies) that even understand the concept "there are two kinds of files -- executables and data" or that "executables exist to work with data"? Well, if the Good Times Virus has anything to say on the subject, no. These are the blinking 12:00 generation -- people too stupid, tired, or busy to bother with the simplest of things around. These people expect the PC to know instantly what they want to do, or to be very inflexible and only offer them a few choices so they can go ahead and do what few tasks they know they can do on a PC without having to worry about thinking.
"In other words, Jackson needed to rule that Linux has virtually no chance to go mainstream. But he didn't mention RedHat's successful initial public offering, or even popular products, such as Apple Computer's iMac."
Linux going mainstream is still a possibility to many people, that is, people who know how to use a computer. The only other "mainstream" users who will use Linux (for the time being only) will, of course, require a local Linux guru to setup Linux for them before they can start enjoying the benefits of this "fringe" operating systems (this is why we support out local LUG). Jackson ignored this because he doesn't have much direct experience by Linux, besides Microsoft trying to use it as a straw man argument (which may very well have led him to be too harsh on it).
Wired also tried to decry his ruling with other points. The Red Hat IPO was successful because companies use it on workstations, not because of mainstream users.
As for the iMac -- how many people bought the iMac for basic, basic word proc/browser usage (which is the "reason to buy" right now) over PCs just because of the case design? A fair amount, I'd say. The iMac is not a choice of operating systems or hardware, it's a choice of flavours! Most people know NOTHING about the insides of a computer, and telling them that they use different proccessors would just confuse them. Instead, slap a pretty shell on it, and it'll sell alright. The same people (whom I've met and talked with) who bought iMacs, where the same people who bought the new beetle for its looks (over, say, its performance stats).
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I have a grand time posting as an AC on Slashdot.
I read that as 'I enjoy being a troll'.
Anything I can do to make these Linux loonies
As opposed to Windows loonies.
look even further like Loonies, I will do. It's great sport, making stirring up a bunch of zealots and using them to discredit Linux.
That is a pretty transparent technique, and one by which you discredit yourself more than you help your cause.