Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Mike Meyer]

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

Except you treat *every* mention of any crime other than abuse of
monopoly power as a crime that involves the use of force - whether it
does or not. In the example I quoted, you did it with "theft" -
without reference to how the theft happened. There are lots of forms
of theft that don't involve use of force - abuse of monopoly power is
one of them, but so is embezzlement. Yet you accused me of equating
arguments with guns.

>> 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.

If it that vital, then you need to make the distinction yourself, and
quit treating *any* crime not committed by MS as if it involved the
use of 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.

Oh, we know you reject it. You never miss an opportunity to say so -
even if it's not at all relevant.

As predicted, you denied the truth of what I said, then provided an
excuse for a behavior that you don't follow. So we're still waiting
for an explanation for your actual behavior other than your being a
shill for MS.

> 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.

Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong
that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force. This is the kind of force that MS wields
illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in
that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.

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