[tlug] Jumping to Conclusions

["Roger Markus" <rogermarku@example.com>]

First, although I already briefly apologized for jumping to
conclusions regarding my post that bounced, allow me to apologize once
more for raising the blood pressure of our good and conscientious
moderator.  Sorry Josh!  I'll calmly and politely ask "What happened?"
if something like this happens again!

Secondly - I now realize that I if I had set my GMail to plain text,
that wouldn't have happened in the first place.  I'll set it to plain
text from this message forward.

Now - as an example of why I sometimes suspect some kind of influence
on the media from Microsoft, note this line from the May 4, 2007 "PC
Magazine Announce" newsletter regarding a possible merger between
Microsoft and Yahoo:

"We've also put together quick analysis on what it might mean, and why
the Yahoo/Microsoft merger is good for the industry, and good for
consumers."

Now - I ask you - does that sound like impartial analysis, or a PR
release from a corporation?  I would think an honest and impartial
analysis would say "could be good for the industry and consumers" or
something to that effect (assuming that's the honest conclusion
arrived at!)  Instead we get this absolute statement that it "is" good
for the industry and - needlessly repeating the word - good for
consumers.

Interestingly, at their page with the PR piece entitled: "Why the Deal
Would be Good  For You", there is a link to another article (posted as
an opinion), entitled: "Microsoft and Yahoo: A Really Bad Idea".  So
we get "Why the Deal Would be Good For You" posted as news, and
"Microsoft and Yahoo: A Really Bad Idea" posted as an opinion.  They
are both opinions!  Where is the impartial analysis?

RM