Hey, I take it back Reg. The "so many words saying nothing" thing is something Dowd picked up from you, not vice versa. I lose track of ad hominems sometimes. I apologize for the improper attribution.
For newcomers, a little treat. The legal branch of the Mind of Reg(TM) in its fullest cheesy debate technique glory.
Dan, all of that typing and you have said nothing. MSFT has set no precedent, hih? So I assume that the decision handed down by the Justice department on per processeor deals, OS bundling and online networks must simply be in my imagination. If not, what does it mean. The JD has already rendered a decision on MSFT. Their decision is an interpretation of the law, by the top cops in the country. Their decision apparently states that MSFT is currently, and has not historically been in no major violation of anti-trust policies as currently interpreted by our nations honorable adjudication system (sans the decree issued, of course). If you don't like it, fine. If you don't agree with thier decision, that is fine as well, but stop pretending that it didn't happen. If it happened, it can be considered precedent. (post 12561 here, quoted in full)
Our nations honorable adjudication system. If it happened, it can be considered precedent. Reggie couldn't be bothered to read what he had typoed then either. If anyone wants to torture themselves with the precise context of this little missive, you can go back to posts 12559, 12560, 12561 here. Think this opinion would be a helpful in explaining away all that email in court Reggie?
Cheers, Dan. |
