"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> "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.
So follow the link and read it. I quoted the comment and reply
directly to make life easier on the readers. I quoted them exactly in
context. That you try and deny they illustrate you doing exactly what
I said you do is only to be expected.
>> 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:
So what? That doesn't change the essential truth of my statement -
that you react to *every* comparison of MS's activities with less
controversial criminal activity with the "You're comparing them to
criminals with guns. I won't discuss that." It really does make me
think that you're more interested in protecting MS's reputation than
in any discussinon.
>>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?
Yes, I've read the thread. It's full of you creating straw men,
calling those who disagree with you liars, calling the government
crooks, and the like. I'd be interested in seeing *one* quote that
compare MS's actions to the "actual use of force." And I want what I
gave you - the link to the google groups page the quote came from, and
enough context to find it.
The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
of force". It compares MS to people who are willing to use force to
get their ends. But there is no "actual use of force."
> 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."
No, this wasn't "long before" the post I quoted; it occured well after
it. And while this really does refer to the "actual use of force",
anyone even vaguely familiar with common english usage will recognize
the phrase "arm twisting" as an idiomatic usage for a being extremely
persuasive, with no "actual use of force" taking place. If that's the
best you can do, you really haven't got an argument.
> "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."
No "actual use of force" in this one, either. This is a *very* apt
comparison. The only real difference between this and what MS did is
that it replaces something mildly objectionable - charging people for
something they aren't getting - with something very objectionable -
selling kiddie porn.
> 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. ;)
Your replies to *everyone* who compares MS's criminal activities to
more obviously criminal activities have been that accues them of
equating MS's actions to using a gun - much nastier than simply "the
actual use of force" and then refusing to discuss the comparison. The
only explanation I can think of is that you are trying to prevent
people from realizing that MS is a criminal organization. That you
deny doing this is only to be expected, and I'll bet you deny it
again.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
