Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message 
news:863bmh2t7x.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...
> "David Schwartz" <davids at webmaster.com> writes:
>>> I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
>>> everyone but MS.
>>     To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
>> talk about something other than MS.

> You do that *every time* someone compares MS with other criminals -
> you immediately refer to "criminals with guns" and refuse to discuss
> the issue further. And yes, you've already claimed that you only do
> that when the other reference is to "actual use of force", and I've
> already disproved that.

    You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is 
one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread, 
actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where 
the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force.

    You are correct that it is possible to steal something without actually 
using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely 
important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to 
obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as 
force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent.

>> But if you do a little research, you'll find I'm completely
>> consistent and have said similar things about numerour other
>> entities.

> Not in this thread, you haven't.

    Well duh, this thread is about Microsoft.

> The only consistency here has been
> trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
> crimes.

    That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are 
Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes 
(such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.

> I'm still waiting for you to quit trying to lie (or, as you
> would say, "argue") your way out of it, and come up with a reason for
> this behavior other than doing so at MS's orders.

    The reason is that there is a huge difference between crimes that 
involve force or fraud and crimes that don't involve any force or fraud. 
Theft, threats of force, and the like are in a totally different category 
from purely consensual crimes such as the ones Microsoft was accused of.

    There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of 
actions that I do consider force or fraud. And had Microsoft been convicted 
for *those* actions (rather than metaphorical use of "market force"), then I 
would not be defending them. I don't defend them of those charges, which 
would have been (and is) equally wrong for a monopolist or a non-monopolist.

    DS