Re: Boycott Microsoft

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! 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. Furthermore, the current attacks on Microsoft aren't based on any such accusations, despite the fact that you can bet your bottom dollar they would be if the government thought there was any merit to them. The attacks on Microsoft are simply an example of what happens when envy-ridden mediocrities feel safe in letting their envy show because productive ability and success are so widely hated in our society. I'm not surprised to see the "good of the many" mantra and the case of Socrates offered up to justify vilification of Microsoft. 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 >> > Michael Hunter <mhunter@umr.dot.edu> writes: >> > >> Mark "I suck" Peters >> >>>[...] >> What's there to defend? M$? Why bother? They already got more stooges, >> peons and apologists than they can use. Besides, people who defend M$ tend >> to be a bunch of self-serving hypocrites who are defending themselves >> really (especially the Windows developers). By defending M$, they are >> trying to defend the entity who puts bread on their tables. While that is >> perfectly understandable (from the perspective of a human nature weakness) >> it is still morally reprehensible to defend fraud and corruption, just so >> one may ensure one's income. Selfishness can not be reconciled with the >> good of the many (computer users in general). Read about Socrate's trial >> and suicide, sometime.