I read what you have written with interest, but I see no citations of specifically identifiable facts. Your points may be valid, but upon exactly what specific statements, cases, documents, etc., are they based?
Many statements made about MSFT, such as their putting something in the code that can disable a competitor's software, sound interesting. But what are the specific facts behind the accusations.
It becomes like the attorney who asks the person on the stand, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
1. It implies that the person did beat his wife, or
2. It implies that he still does beat his wife.
The problem is that nothing is ever factually established as to the actual validity of the charge behind the implication. It is a good trick for those who are successful in using it.
Nevertheless, some of us have a little more ability to avoid being told what to think based upon mere implications. We like to hear all the facts of the matter.
What are the hard facts, if you don't mind.
Best Wishes,
Muffin Man |
