Linux-Advocacy Digest #270, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:02 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[snip]
> >> You don't actually think this has anything at all to do with copyright
> >> law, do you? Or simple "greed", as in profit motive?
> >
> >Hard to be sure. People keep saying what MS does is wrong because
> >of their motives. Sometimes even that it is illegal because
> >of their motives.
>
> Kind of like the way whether your motive is the difference between
> "murder" and "manslaughter", that.
Yes, apparenlty that is what some people think.
That is why I sometimes argue against it.
[snip]
> >> No, you don't approve of profiteering any more than anyone else would.
> >> You are simply ignorant of it.
> >
> >I think that if your argument depends on your telling me what
> >I approve of, you are already lost.
>
> I think if you intend to deny that you share the ethical standards of
> the majority of other homo sapiens, you are lost, and your argument is
> irrelevant.
I hope- perhaps mistakenly- that the 'majority of homo sapiens'
do not feel that success is immoral, as you do.
I could be wrong about that. If so, we are all lost.
Sadly, there is some evidence that I *am* wrong
about that. But I try to keep the faith, as it were.
> I must admit that I've assumed you are an intelligent and
> honest person. If this is mistaken, then you may have a point.
Perhaps I've got my attributions mixed up, but where not
you just calling me a liar a few posts ago?
[snip]
> >> Now if only they weren't an imaginary abstraction themselves...
> >
> >Well, now, you can say that we shouldn't have these
> >abstractions called "corporations" that have property
> >rights like individuals.
>
> No, I didn't say that, thank you.
Well, no, you didn't. Perhaps you are saying that
we should have 'corporations' but tey shouldn't
have property rights? Or intellectual property rights?
> >If you do say that, I guess you could justify a lot of htings.
> >
> >I happen to disagree with you on the point, however.
>
> Again, your arguments seems to be based on an unsupported assumption
> that "property rights", or rights to intellectual property, copyright,
> has something to do with this discussion. Why is that? This case
> concerns commerce, not authorship.
Well, it seems to me like you were trying to dismiss Microsoft's
intellectual property claims by arguing that MS is
an "imaginary abstraction"
[snip]
> >Nobody is talking about the EULA but you. Microsoft
> >has been saying that MS's *distributors* (ie, OEMs)
> >can't change Windows without permission, then
> >sell the changed version. The EULA is not the license
> >agreement the OEM's use, I'm sure.
>
> Precisely. Microsoft has been saying that Microsoft's *publishers* (ie,
> OEMs, who incorporate MS's product within their own) are only allowed to
> be Microsoft's *distributors*, supposedly because this is required in
> order to maintain the value of Microsoft's *trade secret* EULA licenses.
Whilst it may or may not be required to maintain the value of the
EULA, it is hard to see what *that* has to do with anything.
Surely you aren't arguing that pre-loading Windows on a PC
means the OEM holds the copyright?
> A classic illustration of the idea that if you tell enough lies, even
> honest people get confused.
Funny, it never gets me confused.. :D
> >Clearly I've gotten you onto some kind of hobby horse
> >of yours, and I think it safe to assume that no
> >constructive discussion can take place with you
> >on that subject.
>
> Don't try to snow-blind, us, bub. If you can't take the heat, stay away
> from my nuclear furnace.
That's the idea. :D
> >[snip- lots and lots and LOTS of irrelevant EULA stuff]
>
> EULAs cannot possibly be irrelevant, it is the OEM licenses which
> mandate that EULAs are the only method available for using Windows
> within the OEM's PC products.
Sounds pretty irrelelvant to *me*.
> Again, the ability to back up lies with
> more lies until most people give up in consternation is quite
> specifically something other than reasoned or reasonable argument.
Sure. I'm not offering your reasonable argument on the point;
I'm not lying either. I'm dismissing an irrelevancy as, well,
obviously irrelelvant.
It's your hobby horse, not mine. I don't have to ride it.
> >> You confuse product and program.
> >
> >I was using them interchangably; I'll try to be clearer.
>
> No apology necessary.
Glad I didn't offer one, then! :D
> >Operating systems are made of things that can be sold separately.
>
> Anything is made of things that *can* be sold separately. Ever hear of
> "after market goods"?
Ya. That is so.
Operating systems are pre-assembled software made up of
bits that can be and have been acquired separately.
> >This is nowhere more dramatically evident than in Window's case,
> >where many, many components, including 'fundamental' ones
> >were, in fact, sold separately at one time, and some
> >*still are*.
>
> There is not a single bit of Windows that was ever sold separately to my
> knowledge.
MS-DOS was. Yes, even the version that was in Windows 95
was also sold separately.
[snip]
> Windows is an operating system with a bunch of other stuff bolted on in
> order to prevent anyone from competing with Microsoft.
An operating system *is* a bunch of stuff bolted together.
That MS has at times sold some of these bits separately
is historical fact.
Perhaps it was bad that they did so.
If so, aren't you glad they aren't doing it so much now?
> And your general
> description in this paragraph would be more than enough evidence to
> convict MS on several more restraint of trade counts, if we were to
> assume your statement was correct.
Well, that position shows a certain consistancy. Mind you,
it's pretty clearly pathologically anti-consumer to take
such a view.
Not that your interpretation of the law is necessarily wrong.
It's just blatantly anti-consumer to argue that because
things *can* be sold separately, they must be.
> >If bundling is out, then Windows *itself* is out, and in my view
> >this applied to any OS. Suchg a product is not appreciably different
> >just because historically it wasn't ever unbundled.
>
> Think harder.
Perhaps you could give me a little *hint*? :D
[snip]
> >Like DiskDoubler. Like the Defragmenter. Like the GUI. A separate
> >product, once upon a time, in actual fact- now bundled with Windows.
>
> Yes, you are correct. I don't think there are many people here who
> would argue this point. DiskDoubler and Defrag and Windows itself were
> previous (un-indicted) violations.
Well, that is consistant with your prior statements, certainly.
But would you defend this law you believe we've got on the books?
[snip]
> >Windows includes also MS-DOS 7, and for some time MS sold
> >both MS-DOS 7 and Windows 95. It comptes with DR-DOS. *And*
> >this product preceeds Windows outright- *clearly* a 'separate product'
> >if anything is.
>
> Luckily for MS they got "special dispensation" enabling them to avoid
> charges for these previous crimes because of the consent decree.
They got a special dispensation to Integrate other products
with their OS, in that same very consent decree. Are they home free?
Do the rules now apply only to *other* companies without concent
decrees?
> >Basically, you are saying that MS isn't allowed to produce an OS because
> >OSes and bundled software, and bundled software is Not Allowed.
>
> No, why would you say that?
Well, I wouldn't.
> It wouldn't surprise me terribly if every
> example of an "improvement" you can think of in Windows was actually
> merely an anti-competitive tactic for preventing competition. But I am
> a bit surprised that you are willing to even tentatively admit it.
I am merely pointing out the consequences of your own
argument, consistanty applied: Operating systems are
against the rules. They are "anti competitive".
> >You may be right that Bundled Software is Not Allowed, but that
> >outlaws Operating Systems, and I find it hard to see that as a good
> >thing!
>
> Only Microsoft's operating system.
A double standard, then. Microsoft's and not IBMs.
Is it that you have something *personal* against
Microsoft, or is it just that MS is successful in a market
you care about, and IBM is successful in a market
you don't care about?
> Again, you are confusing (now, I
> believe, merely confabulating) programs and products.
"Confabulating" would mean that I had invented one or the other
things; ie, that they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure they do, even though I may conflate them at times,
when I'm not being careful.
[snip]
> >Microsoft has not even been accused of cutting off Netscapes
> >access to *Windows*.
>
> Only their access to their air supply,
Not even that. They've been accussed of *wanting* to
cut off Netscapes air supply.
But it is well established that they did not manage
to do it.
> which isn't Windows, but the PC
> market. They did this directly by cutting of Netscape's access to the
> Windows pre-load market (the restraint of trade/tying conviction) and
> indirectly by cutting off Netscapes access to the PC market as a whole
> (the monopoly conviction).
They did not even manage to do this. The accusation is that
they *tried* to do it, not that they succeeded.
> I think you're going to have to learn to
> understand the distinction before you're going to get very far trying to
> support your argument.
'Tis your argument I'm trying to support, right now. I don't
think Microsoft's alleged unsuccessful strong-arming
of OEMs various is really relevant to it, though.
> >> >This is really true of OSes in general.
> >>
> >> All OSes, for instance, have kernel, and GUI. Let's say.
> >
> >This is definitely false.
>
> *Let's say.* Get it?
It's not true. It's not true in particular of the
OS we are arguing about. Why should we say it?
> >> But are there
> >> any other OSes where the kernel (DOS)
> >
> >DOS is not a kernel. Windows 95 does not
> >have a kernel in the sense that things like Unix
> >do.
>
> Sure it does. You just don't know anything about it, because it is
> proprietary crapware rather than a real OS.
I do know about it; a great deal has been published
about it, both from MS and other sources.
That Windows 95/98 does not have a kernal as
Unix does is quite well established.
[snip]
> >I'm glad you realize this!
> >
> >May I ask if you think Windows is no longer in violation, and
> >if not, why not?
>
> You seem to be playing catch-up, I'm afraid.
Guess so.
> Perhaps you are unfamiliar
> with the original Consent Decree. I think you should try to do some
> research on this before pretending to refute any other points.
Oh, that would make it too easy for you! :D
> I'm
> sorry I can't help you too much; I threw away all my links to the
> Consent Decree several years ago.
Pity. I might read between the lines and conclude that you think
the Consent Decree overrides the laws you were
previously talking about.
If it does, MS is home free, but I doubt it.
> >They got permission to "integrate" stuff with their OS; it wasn't
> >just for Windows 95 alone. (Had it been, they'd have been hosed
> >when Windows 98 came along, wouldn't they?)
>
> This kind of shoddy argument just fills me with fury. I can hardly stop
> from screaming, to be honest.
That's how I feel when you guys tell me that I need to be
screwed so your companies can have an easier time in the market.
> MS got permission to *develop integrated
> software*. They didn't get permission to "integrate" stuff AT ALL.
Surely Windows 98 is integrated software that Microsoft developed?
I agree with the Judge who threw the injuction out. Interpreting
the concent decree so that IE can't be integrated is absurd:
such a standard would render MS-DOS verboten as well. It's
not like Windows 95 represented the "integration" of entirely
new software purpose written to be integrated.
[snip]
> >This isn't really fair; while Windows 95 was certainly no NT, it
> >was a step away from DOS, in that it used DOS rather less
> >than Windows 3 had done.
>
> "Fair?" Ha. How moronic.
You feel fairness is moronic?
Duely noted! :D
(Okay, so it was a cheap shot. You know I can't resist 'em. :/ )
> It was a pathetic piece of SHIT, and it still is!
Not really. It's very good at what it does, which is mostly
being compatible with everything under the sun.
Begin able to combine components ranging from DOS
drivers to 32-bit apps is quite an impressive
acheivement, really.
> And you are an idiot
> in my judgement, for pretending that this is just fine and dandy and
> going on and on and on and on and on and on in a really sickening
> display of "how to be a passive aggressive asshole without a clue."
Gee, I'm beginning to think you might not like me.
Somehow, that makes me feel better. :D
> I'm sick, again, of wasting my breath. Figure out which is your ass and
> which is a hole in the ground, and get back to me.
I think there may be a KnowldgeBase article on that. I'll get
back to you. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:03 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:41 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
> >
> >This article describes the bug in a beta of Windows 3.1 which
> >caused a spurious and unintelligible (but harmless) error message
> >when you installed on DR-DOS. It was fixed prior to release.
>
> Maybe you can explain to us why this mere "bug" was encrypted and why
> it attempted to disable debuggers then? This looks pretty deliberate
> for a "bug", particularly since other code around the block in question
> is not so protected.
I assume the software that contained it was encrypted for some
more-or-less sensible reason. What that would be is not
clear to me, but encrypting the 'detect DR-DOS and vomit' module
is not sensible; that will not hide what you are doing in the least.
> And if DR-DOS really was incompatible, why did they disable (but not
> remove) this code in the retail version?
I presume the code does do something useful somewhere. It's not
like outright removal of the code is *hard*.
If it were really some sort of Clever Plot (tm) to discredit DR-DOS,
then they would have *shipped* the code. And blamed Digital
Research for the problem. And let them figure out how to fix it.
Heck, they might even make it prevent installation, at that.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[snip]
> >> You have come full circle again, and are misrepresenting the case. The
> >> validity of the prediction is not dependant on Leslie's expectation.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean by this. what I'm saying is that it isn't
> >a *prediction*, not that it is virtue of that invalid.
>
> I don't care what you are pretending to mean by this. You're wrong;
Oh man. *That* says it all.
[snip]
> >> >Well, apparently Leslie does. :D
> >>
> >> No, you do.
> >
> >Do not! :D
>
> Did.
Didn't! :D
(This is fun. Let's go round again!)
[snip]
> >> >But why hold that against him? It's hardly the worst of Usenet sins!
> >>
> >> It is.
> >
> >Confusing discussion with empirical science is the worse
> >of Usenet sins?
>
> No, trolling is the sin, and you are consciously and purposefully
> committing it.
So why are you accusing *Leslie* of it?
Or have you just lost track of the discussion?
[snip]
> >If you don't like trolling, why do you come to .advocacy news groups?
> >This thread is exclusively contained in such.
>
> You seem to misunderstand. I'm not J. Random Poster, who might not have
> the weight of conviction in identifying what is heated discussion
> between contradictory arguments, and what is a troll attempting to
> disrupt discussion. I come here for discussion on topics I have an
> interest in.
You aren't interested in this topic?
Then let Leslie have me.
> You come here to try to pretend you have a great intellect
> and can outwit people.
Oh, not really. I tend to play dumb! :D
('Course, some say that I'm not exactly *playing*...)
> The unfortunate part, of course, is that often
> it probably works. Thus my problem; in order to encourage discussion, I
> must waste countless hours first refuting your bullshit trolling.
Seriously for once:
You are merely *dismissing* my arguments by calling them
trolling. But you yourself seem to know that this is not an effective
approach: hence you must "waste countless hours first refuting"
my comments, as you do not quite put it.
This kind of discussion what these newsgroup are for.
> Occasionally, this provides a lesson which I can present to other
> readers in how to try to avoid trolling, and even heated and
> contradictory argument. Just as frequently, however, I lose my patience
> in the same way as less confident posters might. Since this seems to be
> your only actual goal (prevent discussion),
If I wished to prevent discussion, I would use a cancelbot. My posting
does not have the effect for preventing discussion; it is *part* of
a discussion.
Perhaps a discussion you would rather not have.
But a discussion nevertheless.
> I can only surmise it must
> be because you really don't have the ability to support your arguments
> through reason. The unfortunate fact is that this is supported by the
> fact that your position cannot support a reasoned argument: Microsoft
> has committed a crime, whether you wish to believe it or not.
Hmmm. I'm afraid your mere believe in this, no matter how fervent,
is not enough even to dispell a troll. :D
> [...]
> >> No, they don't. And I certainly know what interoperability is.
> >
> >Let me guess: it is "standards compliance" to you, right?
>
> No, it is interoperability. Standards compliance is a mechanism which
> supports interoperability; it is neither a goal nor a definition of
> interoperability all by itself.
Oh, good. Must got you confused with Leslie.
> >> It has
> >> everything to do with working *interoperably* with *competitors*
> >> products, and Microsoft doesn't do that.
> >
> >Sure it does.
>
> "Sure"? You really are a pathetic and intentionally ignorant moron,
> aren't you?
I'm insulting too. :D
> You haven't a clue, I'm afraid I must say, what
> "interoperability" means. Not even a hint of a clue, in fact.
Not even the *scent* of a hint of a clue?
[snip]
> >> Could be you're mistaken, there.
> >
> >Could be, but isn't.
>
> Given your general level of cluelessness, I guess it might be worth
> pointing out that it is not complying with standards, but in attempting
> to subvert them to support profiteering, where MS has a rather dark
> brown looking reputation.
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
I've read it.
It describes a proposed strategy for MS: support open
standards, extend them with new features, and use them
to bring more people into Windows.
It's very clever, really. Whodathunk that embracing
open standards can be a way to marry even
more people to Windows?
I dunno about "dark brown" though. Seems like
a positive development to me.
> >> Could be you're trolling.
> >
> >This one is a bit more likely, though. :D
>
> Fine. I'll be sure to point out that you do admit to intentionally
> inhibiting discussion because you have no reasonable or justifiable
> point to make, when next you post this mindless drivel of yours.
Well, you'll be lying if you do.
But can you delude yourself into thinking otherwise?
I'll never know. But you will.
> [...there's not much point in going on with this charade, now is
> there?...]
No, probably not. I think I can safely say that you've
abandon any pretense of actually defending your
positions, and you are merely slinging invective.
If *only* you'd talk about Hitler, I'd win! :D
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:05 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[snip]
> >> Unless you're just lying. I've been fooled before.
> >
> >Poor fellow. Don't you know the standard MS-bashers Guide
> >To WinTrolls?
> >
> >Allow me to quote:
> >
> >"If a WinTroll won't agree with you, this is called 'lying'."
> >
> >:D
>
> Forgive me for not simply trying to be as much of an idiot as you are
> yourself. Could you manage to stop being moronically passive-aggressive
> long enough to explain whether you are openly admitting you are lying,
> or just proving you have no intention of engaging in any productive
> discussion?
Neither, really, I'm just using a little humor to point out the
relatively low quality of arguments of the form:
"you're a liar"
However they are dressed up.
When you resort to invective, it mostly just makes
me look good, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
I'm just trying to make the most of it.
Any questions? :D
If not, I have one:
What is this "moronically passive-agressive" thingy you
are on about?
Would prefer it if I were *intelligently* passive-agressive, say?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:05 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[snip]
> Now if only you understood why that is not even close to good enough....
>
> The willingness to admit you are lying does not excuse lying, Mr.
> Johnson. Trolling is a matter of being dishonest, not merely being
> incorrect.
Now, now, I was merely *mistaken*; I got Leslie's story confused.
You really can't blame me too much. You folks go through *so* much
gried to make every thing Microsoft sound *so* evil, you can't
be surprised if occasionally I get tripped up by all the rhetoric.
You'll either have to cut back on the rhetoric, or deal with
it when us dimwits get confused. Such is life.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:06 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m2alh$2np7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <IkFg5.13444$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >An account that has MS breaking other people's dialers. :D
>
> In several ways.
One'll do.
[snip]
> >> Huh? Ask your ISP to dig up a a pre-1995 firmware image and
> >> load it into your dial-up hardware, regardless of what it
> >> was.
> >
> >Will something interesting if they do that?
>
> Yes, your Windows box will no longer log in. The scenario
> that happened to all ISPs at the time...
This isn't MS breaking anything. This is just MS not
adhering to the "open standards" you are so fond of.
Nothing wrong with that per se.
[snip]
> >You do use "broke" in the most interesting ways.
>
> Yes, Microsoft has been very creative about it.
I meant you, not Microsoft. :D
Microsoft has a *legion* of lawyers stand by to
abuse language at a moments notice!
You just have your own native wit.
I think you deserve more recognition for it. :D
> When
> you upgraded your working Win3.1 box with a standards-conforming
> ppp dialer, you would find it replaced by one that would
> try to use the non-standard MSCHAP authentication instead.
> I think that qualifies as 'broken' in any sense of the
> word.
Does *sound* damning. More so that your last
effort. Where can I get the details of the case?
This comes up over and over again, below; to avoid
repetition I will just ask here, and leave it at that.
[snip]
> >Okay. That's not the same thing as "breaking" their dialers
> >or servers. It's competition, and you may well feel that it is
> >a bad thing.
>
> It was a bad thing, and not only because of the new cross-platform
> problems. The TCP layer was not integrated correctly in
> the dialer so that replacing it with a conforming version
> would allow netbios-over-tcp to work, and the MSCHAP implementation
> which they claimed was needed for security was in fact much
> less secure that the standard CHAP.
Microsoft just *never* gets anything right on the first
version, do they?
I've snipped various laments below about how
Microsoft software is, in your view, not perhaps
the best implemented stuff every made. :D
[snip]
> To view StarOffice in the same perspective, consider
> how you would feel about it if suddenly it was very
> difficult to buy a computer that did not include
> it, and that it took a great deal of work to exchange
> work between it and your existing programs.
Not to put too find a point to it, but I tend to feel that
something very similar to this is the aim of the
current legal proceedings.
Albeit Netscape, not StarOffice.
> The latter
> of course, is not true, and there is no public standard
> involved anyway, so it doesn't quite make a good
> analogy. Still, there is a very good possibility that
> every computer *will* come with Openoffice preloaded
> soon. It makes perfect sense from the system vendor
> and consumer perspective. What do you think can
> or should prevent it?
I do not see that anything should prevent it, except
consumer demand or lack thereof.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[snip]
> >You seem to feel that accusing me of lying is an answer to
> >anything I may say. I don't think that'll work, even among
> >those who think I am a liar. (And You Know Who You Are. :D )
>
> Somehow you seem to have stumbled on to the idea that if you lie so
> often that it become obvious you lie routinely, it somehow makes you
> impervious to argument because you don't lie every single time.
Hmmm. How can you know what I'm thinking if, as you say,
I lie routinely?
> >In fact, he isn't showing it because it is mere invective,
> >essentially meaningless and therefore impossible to
> >demonstrate.
>
> Which is to say "because you do not wish to believe it."
Hmm. Now, I may be wrong, but I don't think what I said
is *quite* equivalent to that.
> You seem
> rather caught up in proving that you can deny the obvious and show your
> superior intellect by supporting a ludicrous position through trolling.
Well, yes, I know how you feel about people disagreeing with you.
> >"Predation on all interoperability" is, in particular, a
> >nasty sounding phrase that does not say anything
> >much.
>
> It apparently says precisely what I meant it to say.
I do not dare to *guess* what you might have meant,
if anything.
> Perhaps next time
> you might try something less boring as a denial of reality.
I'm afraid that I can't quite agree to grand your
rhetorical flourishes the status of "reality"...
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
