Ed, since you seem to have found plenty of other people to argue with, I should stay out of this, but with a post like this it's hard to resist.
Your mind seemed to be set, it is stubborn, stupid and foolish. I am sorry to be that way, i.e personal attack, but you started it.
He did? Toy said you made some stupid statements. You turn around and make what looks to me to be a pretty encompassing and personal statement. Why didn't you just call him a communist and Microsoft hater?
If your theory is correct, that all the laws are good , and reasonable and can fit well in our modern society, then we do not need any legislators.
Uh, what theory was that? Here we move from the ad hominem argument to the straw man argument. As near as I can tell, Toy was arguing that conviction is not guaranteed for breaking many laws doesn't mean the laws are obsolete. He didn't say "laws are good". Homicide didn't look like much of a crime to John Gotti, either, for a long time.
It is a topic much complex than you can imagine , especially with a simple mind. The world is not just black or white, it is not a straight line at all.
Uh, who makes the argument that antitrust is simple? Certainly not me. The last time I (foolishly) tried to have a legal debate with the Mind of Reg(TM), I was informed that it's all quite simple, Microsoft has done nothing wrong. The reasoning was somewhat opaque to me, as near as I can tell it came down to the John Gotti defense, I've certainly never claimed the law was simple. Naive high school civics guy says there's a process to follow if the law is ambiguous. "We must be free to intimidate/ imititate/ integrate/ Oh, yeah, Innovate, that's the ticket" doesn't seem to have much to do with the legal question. Especially when the right to innovate begins and ends with Microsoft. There's a new line about, the application program formerly known as the internet browser no longer exists in Microsoft terminology. Now, it's just bits of "browser technology" scattered here and there in Windows. Thing about the law, lawyers and judges are the ones who are supposed to know about it, but they don't get much respect around here, unless they come down on the right side of the argument.
Here's a bit of old news from the other thread, with relevant quote.
Witness Lists Suggest Strategies of Microsoft, U.S. nytimes.com.
Absent from the Microsoft witness list is Gates, known as a brilliant and energetic executive who is involved in every important decision made at the company.
That's the Bill we all know and love, right?
Gates was omitted from the witness list, Murray said, because the eight executives included were those on the "front lines of each of the issues raised in the government's case; Bill Gates was not as directly involved in these issues."
Huh?
Yet the Justice Department and states contend that Gates is the central figure in Microsoft's strategy in the Internet software market, and his memos and e-mail correspondence are a key part of the evidence in the case.
Again, the Bill we all know and love.
One person who was at the recent videotaped deposition of Gates said that Microsoft's lawyers might have determined that putting him on the stand could hurt them more than it helped. "He's so argumentative and contentious," this person said, "that Gates kind of took himself out of contention."
During the deposition, Gates not only professed to many memory lapses but, this person said, disputed seemingly innocuous facts like definitions of computing terms that appeared in Microsoft's own documents. Gates, this person said, also professed not to know the level of Microsoft's sales and profits and not to know the share of the operating system market held by Microsoft's Windows.
In addition to the slippery neologistics of computing terms, more basic English vocabulary is under attack here, as when "honesty" is narrowly defined as getting the Chinese to pay for Microsoft software. I don't know how to argue about stuff like this, which is why I tend to stick to sarcasm. That's just my personal hobgoblin-induced small mind problem.
Cheers, Dan. |
