Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Mike Meyer]

"David Schwartz" <davids at webmaster.com> writes:

> "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.

Now you're simply lieing. I never discussed force earlier in the
thread.

>     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.

And now you change your story again. You've gone from referring to all
other criminal acts as "criminals with guns" to "actual use of force"
to "using force or fraud."

>> 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.

Actually, they don't necessarily, but that's relevant. You simply
label *all* crime other than MS's as "criminals with guns" and refuse
to discuss them.

>     There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of 
> actions that I do consider force or fraud.

That's true. They committed a fraud - by lieing to federal officials
in court - and *you* responded by calling those federal officials
"criminals with guns", and using that to *excuse* MS's criminal acts
in this case.

Which is more of the same old song and dance from you: treating MS's
criminal acts as somehow different from any other criminals acts.

         <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.