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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (16140)	1/15/1998 5:41:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Ah, Reggie brings in the definitive legal reference, the American Heritager Dictionary. Of course, of the English Language, not Microsoftese, so probably no use in interpreting the Microsoft legal position. Check out what it says about the Sherman Act, Reggie, let us know. Cheers, Dan.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (16140)	1/15/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>The American Heritager Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition<<< Tut, tut. When throwing a dictionary at someone you should make an effort with your spelling! I notice that you boldfaced the second, innocuous meaning of conspire, (and followed it with a third, out of context, 'meaning' apparently excerpted from somewhere else) but in your previous posts you have used (derived from context, in a rather silly Rush Limbaugh like way) the first meaning. You have implied that something terrible was going on. And that it was a dark secret. Your standard has nothing to do with the realities of courtrooms. Do you really think that Judges feel impartial to criminal defendants, for instance? Of course not, they think they're slime. But in court, the formal procedures and their legal training force them into impartial patterns of behavior. You only ask that they put their own feelings aside for the moment, because nothing else is possible. Lessig had nothing to disclose here because his feelings on the matter of Windows are widespread and common, perhaps the majority opinion, even. But the point is whether he puts his own feelings aside and adheres to the evidence. And the Judge is there as a double check. Saying that he cannot do that is to insult his professionalism. Lawyers take positions with clients, opponents, and etc that are at odds with their own beliefs all the time. It is their job. All this propaganda effort Reg, and no visible goal in sight. If you are trying to get recruited by Radio Liberty, just go apply, fer cryin out loud. ;-) Chaz