I don't have the time to waste combating fud.
It is useless to try to explain science to someone who isn't interested in what the facts have to say. And it's useless to try to learn anything from such people. If they are clever, as Johnson is, they can find a way to claim that almost any fact supports their position. If evolutionists agree on something, it's a dogmatic orthodoxy; if they disagree, they're squabbling about every detail of evolutionary theory.
Now imagine it said this:
It is useless to try to explain Windows advantages to someone who isn't interested in what the facts have to say. And it's useless to try to learn anything from such people. If they are clever, as Linus Torvalds is, they can find a way to claim that almost any fact supports their position. If Windows users agree on something, it's a dogmatic orthodoxy; if they disagree, they're squabbling about every detail of Windows.
You can see that it is more of an opinion than a fact. You can see that clearly it is FUD. Like something Microsoft wrote to discredit Linux users and Linux itself. The so called "Facts" are bised and one-sided, like a Microsoft spounsered Windows Vs. Linux study. If you cannot see that, then you are the imbecile and not me.
End of discussion.