Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message 
news:86oe59e57v.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

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

>> "Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message
>> news:86zmoufiww.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

>>> The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
>>> of force".

>>     I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates 
>> you
>> to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about the Mafia
>> compares MS's actions to actual use of force.

> Maybe true, maybe not - but it doesn't matter. The point is that you
> respond to *every* comparison of MS with other criminals as a
> comparison to "criminals with guns", and then refuse to discuss the
> issue, with utter disregard as to what the other person said. That you
> might be right in one case is irrelevant - we're talking about a
> pattern of behavior.

    That is not true. I make a serious distinction between crimes that 
involve the use of force and crimes that don't. Microsoft was convicted of 
crimes that do *not* involve use of force. I am trying very hard to make 
sure that distinction is preserved.

> If MS had been found guilty of abuse of monopoly power in one
> instance, few people would care. People do make mistakes. That they
> have been found guilty of such abuse repeatedly, on multiple
> continents, and were recently caught doing it yet again - that's what
> makes them criminals. It's the pattern of behavior that matters, not
> the single instances.

    Except that none of this behavior involves any use of force or fraud. 
Actions involving force or fraud are fundamentally different in type from 
actions that don't. And it's this distinction that I'm trying to preserve.

> I'm still waiting for you to come up with an explanation for the
> pattern of your behavior other than that you're taking orders from
> MS. But I expect yout to deny that it exists.

    The pattern of my behavior is that it is vital to me to preserve the 
distinction between force and non-force. Guns and arguments represent two 
fundamentally different categories of human behavior. And I reject the moral 
claim that it is okay to respond to arguments with guns. Microsoft's 
behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not involve force, the threat 
of force, fraud, or the threat of fraud. This is perhaps the most vital 
distinction that there is.

    DS