Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

<axel at white-eagle.invalid.uk> wrote in message 
news:5y47f.174197$RW.59989 at fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In comp.lang.perl.misc David Schwartz <davids at webmaster.com> wrote:
>
>>    This is about whether we're talking *ABOUT* America, you idiot. It's 
>> as
>> if he said the press has no freedom, and I replied, "if you want to talk
>> about some country where that's true, fine, but this discussion presumed
>> America as the basis".
>
>>    Remember, he is the one who said the government owned the economy. 
>> That
>> may be true in some countries, but it's simply *FALSE* in this country. 
>> Our
>> government has limited powers and ownership of the economy is not one of
>> them.

> I see that you cannot make a reasoned argument against the fact that
> property in the form of houses is taxed in America.

    What does that have to do with anything? Look, this isn't a politics or 
an economy newsgroup. I don't have to make rigorously valid economic or 
political arguments. It's sufficient that they be valid with respect to the 
subject at hand. And you can watch people reply to me by saying, "yeah, well 
that isn't correct for Afghanistan". Well, guess what, Microsoft isn't an 
Afghanistan company.

> Also may I remind you that these newsgroups are international.

    So what? We are talking about a United States' company's actions with 
respect to United States laws. There is no reason to make this about 
philosophy, politics, law, international relations or any such things. If we 
did that, we would wind up on tangents (just like this one!) that have 
nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft.

    Yes, in a discussion about Microsoft, I will make economic or political 
statements that aren't 100% valid in every possible imaginable case. But 
guess what? They'll be 100% valid for the case we're discussing.

    And you can watch all the replies about how my statement isn't true in 
every possible case. Well, guess what? I only care about one case.

    DS