I'll concede the points in the 2nd paragraph of your last post
\r\n\r\n
I could say that one out of six ain't bad. But I'd be lying.
\r\n\r\n
however when you accuse me of flat out lying that is absurd
\r\n\r\n
It's useful to know, in dealing with you, that "lying" is "truth".
\r\n\r\n
\r\nthe original document said that MS refused to sell them 260,000 upgraded copies of Windows and Office (no legacy word in sight, although that is one of your obsessions)unless....
\r\n\r\nthat statement can only have meaning if that company intended to buy them in the first place
\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Just out of curiosity, and certainly in no expectation of a rational or consistent answer, I'd be curious as to how you interpret the following statement:
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nI sat across the table from Microsoft as they forced a large multi-national \r\noil company to eliminate all the Novell servers, and move to NT, as \r\nMicro$oft refused to sell them 260,000 upgraded copies of Windows and \r\nOffice unless they did so.\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\nif they intended to buy them in the 1st place, they must have wanted them\r\nif they didn't want them, then MS's refusal to sell wouldn't bother them
\r\n\r\nthe coercion discussed related to dumping Novell\r\nI merely inquired as to the form of the alleged coercion<?p>\r\n
\r\n\r\n
The refusal to sell A unless B were also purchased and C eliminated, at an alternative cost of D..
\r\n\r\n
\r\n- A == 260,000 Windows desktops.
\r\n- B == Windows servers to replace 1,300 Novell servers.
\r\n- C == 1,300 Novell servers.
\r\n- D == retraining and migration costs for a quarter-million employees and billions of documents.
\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\ntaken the way you see it, this would be a clearcut example of illegally leveraging the monopoly\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Indeed. It is.
\r\n\r\n
\r\nit could be that the co. never reported its victimization to the authorities\r\nanti-MS folks might say they were 'scared' or 'intimidated'\r\nothers might say they were bought off\r\n
\r\n\r\n
...or all of the above. Microsoft's sales literature is replete with references to selling to decisionmakers, not technical staff. [link|http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/97/10/23/compaq-microsoft.2-0.html|And threatening customers with withholding products or preferential licensing term].
\r\n\r\n
\r\nin any case the story is apochryphal or perhaps anecdotal at best\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Another lie. It's [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=123498|substantially documented and independently verified].
\r\n\r\n
\r\nyou can call me Andrea all you want but I still won't call you Karsie-Warsie\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Ain't it the damnedest thing when you can tell someone the truth, rub their nose in it, document it, substantiate it, repeatedly, endlessly, and they still insist on getting it wrong? Innit it, Andrea?
Re: Taxing credulity
