in this case imo Mueller has more credibility than parfe (no offense). Why? because Mueller's opinions were backed by facts. parfe's opinions were supported by ad hominem attacks.

I think it's fair to ignore the expert opinion of both Oracle and Google employees on this matter.

It's, however, disturbing when Mueller pretends to be a neutral part, because, quite simply, he's not. The fact he's occasionally right doesn't make him honest. Or trustworthy.

Just out of curiosity, how is that different than, say, Rob Weir's (IBM employee) opinion taken pretty much as fact by everyone on the ODF/OOXML conflict, or for that matter why do we accept Pamela Jones' analysis and opinions if she is so clearly biased against Microsoft?

Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. I don't see a reason to confuse them at all.

However, Mueller's opinion has been considered to diverge from reality in very specific ways, always favoring whoever is paying for it at the time and always being presented as an unbiased expert opinion.

doesn't mean he's wrong.

jury's partial verdict means Mueller > you

Florian, is that you?

If it's not Florain, then at least someone loves him.

Which is nice.

Having an opinion doesn't itself discount an opinion. Being biased or unreliable is reason to discount an opinion. It's important to remember that those are separate concepts.

Bias has nothing to do with how strongly you believe something to be true, or how hard you try to spread that opinion. Bias is nothing more than the extent to which your opinion differs from reality. If you consistently and vehemently insist that the earth is round and not flat, you aren't biased, you're right.

And regardless of bias, you have to also take into account the specific evidence and reasoning provided with an assertion. PJ in particular is pretty good about explaining her predictions, so you can't dismiss her solely due to her bias - you also have to find fault with her reasoning.

You're misunderstanding what ad hominem is. parfe clearly attacked your assertion that Mueller has been correct so far, and supported that position with multiple objective facts.

You have not countered his argument with a similarly well-supported position, which is why you're being down-voted.

>He's basically a huge anti-google marketing campaign.

>his garbage blog

ad hominem attacks against Mueller. not me.

Saying that someone is an anti-google marketing campaign, based on them being paid by google's opposition, is an accusation that may or may not be true, but is hardly a personal insult and is not a fallacial argument as it pertains directly to the matter at hand. The actual truth of a statement is not the requirement for it being considered a logical fallacy.

As to calling his blog garbage, his blog is the method by which he is communicating his views and so it is a judgement of quality of his writing, not of him directly.

[edit] also a personal insult, such as calling someone a complete and utter muppet, can be a perfectly reasonable point to make in argument as long as it is particularly relevant. Which judging from your commentary so far, is something you may wish to keep in mind.

>also a personal insult, such as calling someone a complete and utter muppet, can be a perfectly reasonable point to make in argument as long as it is particularly relevant.

I think that comment applies more to you.

the jury's partial verdict means Mueller > you. so who's the muppet now? :)

I went away and checked with a few people so as to be sure that I wasn't just communicating my own bias, but I don't think you are going to like the answer very much.

Is Gonzo apparently.

[edit] Also, lots of people are fatter than me, but I do not think that is germaine to this discussion.