Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Mike Meyer mwm at
Fri Oct 28 01:28:27 CEST 2005

"David Schwartz" <davids at> writes:
> "Mike Meyer" <mwm at> wrote in message 
> news:86y84ehd3j.fsf at
>> I've noticed something strange that makes me wonder the same
>> thing. Everytime someone compares MS's behavior with that of any other
>> criminals, he responds about MS's activity being "equated to that of
>> criminals with guns", and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
>> while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
>> after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
>> DOJ official who were investigating MS "criminals with guns pointed
>> out [MS officers] heads".
>     I can't understand why you would post an outright lie like this. 

I, on the other hand, understand why you accuse me of lying. You don't
have an answer to the claim, so you call the claim false. SOP for you.

> "Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with 
> guns". I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior is 
> equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in 
> precisely the thread I'm replying to.

The first one is at:

The original comment was:

>> No, they didn't ask for more than Windows were worth. They tilted the
>> playing field against MS competitors by causing consumers to pay MS
>> money for products they didn't receive. In most countries, taking
>> money from unwilling victims without giving them anything in exchange
>> is called "theft".

Note that no mention is made of guns or force - just a definition of
theft. Unless you're so narrowminded that nothing short of pointing a
gun at someone and demanding money from them is stealing from them,
there is no way that this can be equated to the actual use of
force. And if you do believe that definition of stealing, I'll do your
bookkeeping for free - and I won't steal from you.

Your reply:

>    It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that 
>happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous. If 
>you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is that 
>using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh wait, 
>you're already there.

Wherein you accuse me of equating MS's actions with using guns, which
is *exactly* what I said you do.

There are lots more examples of you doing this kind of thing. Like I
said, everytime someone compares MS's behavior with some less
controversial criminal behavior, you act like they accused MS of
holding people up at gunpoint.

Mike Meyer <mwm at>
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

More information about the Python-list mailing list