Oh, no point Reggie. I learned my lesson, I got no desire to engage in cheesy debate techniques. Never did, earnest high school civics guy vs. cheesy high school debate guy is an absurd match. Mr. Assertation still can't be bothered to read what he has typoed either.
For the peanut gallery, compare and contrast:
Am I mistaken in my assertation that MSFT has not been found guilty of illegal monopolistic activities by the courts.
to the historical
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 happened, it can be considered precedent. (post 12561 here, quoted in full)
No, there's no point to any of this. Just entertainment.
Cheers, Dan. |
