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: Charles Tutt who wrote (45729)	6/1/2000 4:28:00 AM
From: Thunder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"Well, if a company uses illegal business practices to eliminate somebody I might otherwise have had the opportunity to deal with, I feel like they've taken something away from me." There's that little word again, with a much larger meaning coming out and peering into the future: "if". Are you expressing that since the $10,000,000,000.(?) buyout of Netscape by AOL, that they have refused you the ability to use their (NSCP's) products and services? Or are you referring to, what the 'specialists' think and were taught in liberal academia of how things 'should be' (you know the: "could of, should of, would of" theorists crowd that subscribe to such doctrine.) I see a thriving competitive & dynamic software industry. An industry that is full of opportunity as well as competition, for those who seek to utilize it and take the risks thereof. Netscape could have chosen that path as AOL, RNWK etc. have thus far, but they didn't unfortunately. For their sake of "true" competition they chose politics. The path of competition & innovation they chose and reinforced by SUNW was rubber stamped by liberal politicians which were funded "liberaly" of course. "If somebody killed your favorite (sports figure, singer, actor, poet, gardener, grocer, whatever) wouldn't you feel harmed? Perhaps not to the extent you would if you were that (whatever), but harmed nonetheless." Harmed no, saddened yes. There is that "if" again though. I'll go as far as to say that "if" "whoever" was accused, convicted & exhausted all the available appeals processes available to defend oneself of killing "somebody", they should be held accountable of the crime, and pay the price (figuratively) that fits the crime. "If" that "somebody" was proven not to be the offender by virtue of the law and is exonerated, there ought to be some viable form of retribution for the plaintiff of close to equal measure, to stem the 'lawsuit happy' mentality. Then again, there are instances of where "killing" has been justified in the court of law, (i.e. when a battered wife defends herself while feeling her life is at risk amidst the battering from her husband-or like when someone defends them self upon break-in upon ones house for seizure of privacy, property (intelectual included), pleasure and is subsequently "killed" in order to defend his or her self etc.) So it is very important to know just why any defendant is defending themselves. "If" your favorite "somebody", lets say Scott M.(?) were brutally killed by "somebody" and this "somebody" was found innocent all the way through full judicial process and exonerated of the crime, would you still continue to"blame Microsoft!!" <vbg> Regards, Gary