"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them
>>> all as illegal. That's why we have laws against assault and battery
>>> and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly power in an
>>> unfair manner.
>> Interesting how you, again, equate a gun and an argument. It is very
>> important to you to justify responding to arguments with guns. However, I
>> reject that premise at its roots, not just in your application of it.
> Another straw man. I never mentioned the word "gun" at all, and none
> of the crimes I discussed require a gun.
You can't be that stupid, can you?! Tell me it wasn't obvious to you
that the phrase "a gun and an argument" means the difference between force
and disagreement.
> You apparently aren't interested in constructive intercourse on the
> question. You're just interesting in knocking down your own
> arguments. Personally, I'd rather not watch you masterbate.
You're are the one who brought up assault and battery and unsafe
driving, equating Microsoft's persuasive negotiation tactics with force in
an attempt to justify responding to them with force.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
