I am reading comments about ars technica's KDE 3.2 review in /., osnews, etc.
Here's the stupid argument I mentioned in the title: "GNOME is better than KDE because GNOME does X and KDE does Y" 
That argument is absolutely stupid unless you can show incontroversible proof that X is better than Y. And for 99% of the instances of the argument, you can't. And even in that case, you are isolating one feature or decision in a very complex system.
Is "yes/No" button ordering better? Maybe. Maybe not. I know "No/Yes" dialogs piss me off, but that doesn't mean one is absolutely better.
And besides, suppose KDE decided to do all things like GNOME. Minimalistic UI, GConf-editor for anything more advanced than changing the date.
Then what's the point? Why would another bland, boring UI be useful at all? 
There's a saying: "Taste is in variety".
|||The opposite is of course just as stupid.|
|||Yes, that is KDE-centric position, I am a KDE user, and I prefer KDE, live with it :-)|
In an older version of this, I said footnotes were broken. They aren't, as you can see :-)