This is the argument of a loser.
No John, it is the argument of somebody who merely disagreed with your point, and explained why in a civil fashion without calling you names. The argument of a loser, is the response from one who cannot do the same.
Gilette gives their razors away so you will buy their blades.
Nope. I just got back from the store, and the razors all had price tags. There were a few freebies on the sides of Barbasol cans, but even these have a cost which somebody is paying for somewhere down the line, not to mention the fact that they are special item promos.
IE is an integrated function.
Nope. Somebody in court is trying to argue that, and the judge still isn't convinced. BTW, you completely side-stepped Compaq. Compaq can put any browser they want on their 'puters. Agree or not? It's either A or B, there is no C.
The nature of capitalism is competition. As a result there will be winners and losers.
Yes, you got one right. It does not, however, address what I said. Now, you probably thought I said the DOJ has a responsibility to keep Netscape in business. That's wrong. What I said is that Netscape has a right to competitively co-exist in the marketplace.
If they screw-up on their own through overbudget hiring binges, or just plain management ineptitude, then—fine—let them go under and less power to them. Your comment does not at all consider that Microsoft is not acting competitively. They are not beating up on Netscape with a slightly better browser at a slightly better price. No way. They are giving away something to all the sheep and lemming consumers who will take it which is not decisively superior. It's, at best, about the same, and even causing technical problems for a lot of them.
Going out on a limb, I wonder if you can debate this gracefully, or just sling mud.
-MrB™ |
