Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (43658)	4/27/2000 4:07:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

ET "The public needs to be protected from the abuse of monopolistic power when it exists". And who protects the public from the monopoly of government? First of all, ET, you live in socialist country so I assume that you're a socialist. If not, be aware that you sound like one. See, ET, your axiom is where you and I differ. We cannot properly debate an issue if we don't accept each other's givens. That's why I should make a note not to engage in debating public policy with socialists. Socialists like yourself always sound like infatuated schoolgirls when waxing rhapsodic about goverment protecting the citizens of their country. Guys like you give government carte blanche and are thankful that they let you live. Now, that may be a good way for you, but, to paraphrase Louis Lamour, "that's not my way". But, see, in America, the foundations of the law is premised on the rights of the individual, not the "public" or the "common good". Have you every seen a law suit brought by "the public". These are collective terms and many people like yourself engage in thinking that "reifies" these abstractions and convince themselves that there really is a "common good" or that "the public" is discrete entity that has "rights". So your axiom is based on the fallacy of composition or "there is no "there" there." Daniel

To: E. T. who wrote (43658)	4/27/2000 4:33:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

My last post to ET (as a Kevin Nealon SNL monologue....) RE: "The public needs to be protected from the abuse of monopolistic power when it exists". (And who protects the public from the monopoly of government?) First of all, ET, I presume you're Canadian (since you cite a Canadian monopoly with such prescience) even though you don't say so in your profile. (Far as I know you could be teenage paid shill or an extraterrestrial.) Bombthrowers always try to remain anonymous so they can't be confronted directly. (Chicken Sh*t) So, I assume that you're a socialist. If not, be aware that you sound like one. (Yugo driver) See, ET, your axiom is where you and I differ. We cannot properly debate an issue if we don't accept each other's givens. (Dim bulb. That's why I should make a note not to engage in debating public policy with socialists.) Socialists like yourself always sound like infatuated schoolgirls when waxing rhapsodic about goverment protecting the citizens of their country. (Like your mum did.) Guys like you give government carte blanche and are thankful that they let you live. Now, that may be a good way for you, but, to paraphrase Louis Lamour, "that's not my way". (Peons) But, see, in America, the foundations of the law is premised on the individual, not the "public" or the "common good". Have you every seen a law suit brought by "the "Common good v. MSFT". (Bolshevik hoser) These are collective terms and many people like yourself engage in thinking that "reifies" these abstractions and convince themselves that there really is a "common good" or that "the public" is discrete entity that has "rights". (Santa Claus, the Easter bunny...) So, I find that your axiom is based on the fallacy of composition or "there is no "there" there." Now I respect the rights of Canadians to live under their legal system. (kangaroo court) You should not lecture citizens of my country about monopoly if you do not understand. (Rightie tightie, Leftie loosie) Ciao, Daniel

To: E. T. who wrote (43658)	4/27/2000 4:51:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

<The public needs to be protected from the abuse of monopolistic power when it exists. In Canada we had a phone monopoly. One company operated the phones. That's changed, now there is competition and phone rates are down. > In the US in 1984 we had one company, closely related to the government, which operated the phones. That's changed, now there is competition, closely related to the government. Our phone rates have quadrupled. What was it that Roger Daltry said?, "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss." Well, I for one, "won't get fooled again". P.S. Its amazing how you Canadians are such experts on American Law. But I must say, you speak our language pretty well. :)