Re: Boycott Microsoft

In article <6jfjqs$srj$1@cdshub.cdc.com>, "Mark A. Peters" <Mark.A.Peters@nothere.cdc.com>stepped up to the mike and sang: > Somehow I missed Mr. Hunter's little gem about my name. I love seeing > opponents resort to name calling, since that's a sure sign that they have no > actual argument to make, and most likely that they don't believe what they > believe on the basis of arguments anyway. > > I guess I don't qualify as a "self-serving hypocrite" since I don't work for > Microsoft, don't program for Windows, and would rather use a Mac instead of > this PC I have to use at work. Damn, another dream destroyed! No one claimed that you did any of the things that you are so quick to point out that you did not...:) > > Allegations about "fraud and corruption" by Microsoft are complete BS - > there is not one shred of evidence to back up these claims, and the same > goes for claims that Microsoft stole ideas and/or software. {DELETED} Those who know better are laughing at least as hard as I am, after reading this...:) > I'm not surprised to see the "good of the many" mantra and the case of > Socrates offered up to justify vilification of Microsoft. Oh yes, you are! > Both of these are > actually examples of _totalitarian_ approaches to government. Socrates was > not accused of a crime, he was simply accused of espousing unpopular ideas. > The question of whether Socrates should be allowed to live or be killed was > put to a vote of the general population. That is an example of _unlimited_ > majority rule, i.e., tyranny by the majority. As with all forms of tyranny, > the mantra of the "good of the many" is always invoked to justify it. > > Mark Peters You missed the whole point, as usual it seems. Socrates was UNJUSTLY accused of something, yet he decided to obey the will of THE PEOPLE rather than upset a system under which he agreed to live and obey. He had a guaranteed escape, yet he chose not to do it. Why, you ask? Read the story. Perhaps you are not aware that we live in a representative republic. That means that ANYTHING a majority elects to be, WILL BE. That applies to ANYTHING, including the Constitution (which may be ammended), to federal law (which may be repelled), to state law (which may be stricken from the records) or to local law (which may be rescinded). In other words, if enough people want something (in this country), they'll GET IT DONE. M$, on the other hand, when acussed of something, simply thumbs its nose at everyone. Leaving aside the issue of wheather the accusation is justified or not, they are going ahead with their plans in spite of the 20+ states who filed injunctions against them. Why? I'll sum it up: greed and disregard for what people want. I could go on and argue about the specifics of how M$ is doing all this Win98 B.S., for this or that reason but I see no point in it. All this stuff has been rehashed many times over by many other people before me and I do not particularly care to regurgitate such arguments. I'll conclude with this thought: M$ feels that it is above any and all regulatory control (be it legal or moral). Fine. That is their prerogative. Consumers, OTOH, may have different prerogatives than M$. Whose will should prevail?...:) Morbius