Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz davids at webmaster.com
Fri Oct 28 03:40:13 CEST 2005


"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message 
news:86hdb2h750.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

>> "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:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/8422f41c9fe137b0?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> 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.

    This thread is large and complex, and I can't always know exactly what's 
a reply to what reply to what. So what's said in what part of a thread may 
carry over to another part of that same thread.

> 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.

    They are. Read the quotes. Here they are again:

"We are talking junior Mafia style enforcement."

>Did Microsoft ever use or threaten force?
"YES .  Have you not read a word I said."

"It will be very hard to prosecute MS for their crimes because they commit
them much the way the Mafia does. ... Everyone was terrified of MS and would
never dream of going public. I have talked about this publicly many times
because it always looked as if I were going to die in a few years anyway."

    There are many more.

>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.

    You are seriously saying that people in this thread have not 
consistently described Microsoft's actions as analogous to an actual use of 
force? Have you read any of the thread? Do I need to dig out more quotes?

    These are all from early in the thread, long before the posts you are 
complaining about:

"The choice was go along with MS arm twisting or go out of business."

    and

"To my way of thinking what MS did was similar to a the only magasine
wholesaler in town telling retailers it had to sell kiddie porn under
the table or pay full retail for all magazines."

    However, you may be right that some of my replies to you may not have 
been justified as responses to just what you said. It'd take a lot of 
digging through the thread to figure that out. ;)

    DS





More information about the Python-list mailing list