Have you been sleepposting?

Post #17,070 by addison 11/6/01 11:06:19 PM Reply	Have you been sleepposting? To change MY mind, you have to prove to me that it ISN'T possible that the Bush Administration had anything to do with this 'settlement'. Where did I say that? I said that nothing changed. Ergo - Bush bears no EXTRA blame. It wasn't a CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. I have merely said such influence is plausible, credible, and likely. Dude, nothing, NOTHING at all CHANGED. So WTF does Bush's election have to do with ANYTHING? You've got to prove that 1) Under Clinton, it was handled DIFFERENTLY (it wasn't, per the prior history), or 2) that it WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERNT UNDER GORE. So far, you've just bashed Bush. That its of course his connving ways. Well, grand. But nothing changed on his watch, is the problem. Addison
Post #17,114 by imric 11/7/01 10:05:19 AM Reply	Zzxzzzzzz.... I said that nothing changed But it has. You can say what you like. THIS time, States are bailing, no? If the States are in control, and the proposed settlement is the same as in the past, as you assert, and the change in White House tenancy has no effect, THEN WHY IS THIS 'SETTLEMENT' BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY? You've got to prove that 1) Under Clinton, it was handled DIFFERENTLY (it wasn't, per the prior history) Mmm hmm. So, it was treated the same, the environmental change caused by switching out Presidents has no effect, (even though the DoJ is under the President), yet the States are accepting this 'deal' where they didn't before, and the DoJ is VERY publicly rolling over (whether they attempted to and were thwarted before is irrelevent, since they aren't being stopped now - that, too is a difference). or 2) that it WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERNT UNDER GORE. I don't give a damn HOW Al Bore 'would have handled it.' What does that have to do with anything? So far, you've just bashed Bush. That its of course his connving ways. ROFL. What a 'bigoted' thing to say! Is it 'bashing' Bush to believe that he might exercise his legal Presidential power to follow the economic philosophy embraced by his political party? Heh. If Pat Robertson had been elected, would it be bashing him if I stated my belief that he would dismantle the abortion laws in this country and follow a pro-right-wing-conservative religious agenda? nothing changed on his watch Heh. Except, of course, that it appears that the DoJ AND the States are rolling over for Microsoft - for no reason whatever, right? I guess it's a mystery, huh. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #17,137 by addison 11/7/01 11:50:12 AM Reply	Re: Zzxzzzzzz.... You can say what you like. THIS time, States are bailing, no? So? This has nothing to do with the President. At best, if TEXAS bailed, or FLORIDA, then there could be an insinuation. Do we need to go over Government 101, and discuss federal versus state authority and power structure? If the States are in control, and the proposed settlement is the same as in the past, as you assert, and the change in White House tenancy has no effect, THEN WHY IS THIS 'SETTLEMENT' BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY? You've said it, and I've asked you to show what's different about it. Since you aren't, I'm presuming you can't. There's nothing different (albeit the change in circumstance that Scott noted) about this, than any other. South Carolina dropped out a while back - was that Bush's fault? Clinton's? New Mexico (IIRC), a while back - Bush? Clinton? Who's fault? If you're asking why the states are possibly signing on - ASK THEM. Some aren't. No different. Some are, and in case you didn't notice, Microsoft has been putting shitloads of political pressure on them (Which is Bush's fault.. how?), AND we've got a serious national/international issue to deal with. (Lemme guess. Bush's fault). So, it was treated the same, You forgot your proof. Oh, and again, thes State AG's don't answer to Bush. I don't give a damn HOW Al Bore 'would have handled it.' What does that have to do with anything? To remind you of what your insinuation/assumption/bigotry is all about: You said that you predicted that if Bush were elected (Gore being the only real possibility), that this would happen. So for your "prediction" to be more than a Miss Cleo tarot card reading, you'd have to show that it would have been DIFFERENT under aybody else. If you don't do that, then you're just blaming Bush, for no reason. If the SAME THING would have happened under Gore or Clinton, WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU BLAMING BUSH FOR? If Pat Robertson had been elected, would it be bashing him if I stated my belief that he would dismantle the abortion laws in this country and follow a pro-right-wing-conservative religious agenda? Not at all. Nor is that what you've done here. You've placed the blame for this DoJ action on Bush, and said its because of Bush. Despite 4 attempts, equally impotent, for the SAME KIND OF IDIOCY, under someone else, and without proving, or even assuming it would be ANY DIFFERENT under Gore. And again: The states don't answer to the President, so you can't blame Bush for any idocy THERE, either. I guess it's a mystery, huh. Nope. Just bigotry. I'll go ahead and close the one opening I left open on purpose - the DoJ under Nader would certainly not have settled like this. (One possibility last election). But, in order to blame Bush, and claim that you "knew" it was coming, you do have to show HOW it is different (all you've done is claimed that), and that it would have been different under Gore. No mystery, there. Addison
Post #17,156 by imric 11/7/01 1:18:59 PM Reply	Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Let's see, now. I say that MS will get off essentially scot-free if Bush wins control of the AG. Now, where there is there an implied (or necessary) prediction about any other circumstance other than the circumstances I was contemplating (namely, if Bush took office? If you want to define 'bigotry' as not giving predictions on both sets of opposed pairs whenever I make a prediction about one member of said pair, well, you have an odd idea of what bigotry means. At most, you could call me biased, but I doubt you have any idea in what way from this datapoint. Not all the world works like "If'n yer ain't fer us, yer agin' us!". Now, irrelevant as it is, I suspect that Bore, ever the politician, would cozy up to MS as well - in the hopes of winning some influence with Redmond. After all, MS would eventually 'rule' the Internet itself - if encouraged properly. And Hey! It's an American company! I wouldn't have put it as certain, but again, it would have been plausible, even likely. Sound familiar? As to your dismissal of the the circumstance that Scott points out (that the DoJ had already won, that they couldn't lose the case anymore), well, I think that you'll see that it heavily influences my opinion [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=16828\|-here-]. If the SAME THING would have happened under Gore or Clinton, WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU BLAMING BUSH FOR? Geez, Addison. Say there are two muggers and a drunk in a park, and one of the two muggers rolls the drunk. Would you, COULD you defend the offending mugger with "You can't blame the guy, if he didn't do it the other one would have - because of that likelyhood, no blame can be placed? Sorry - I don't buy THAT for a second. Do you? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #17,201 by addison 11/7/01 4:47:58 PM Reply	Re: Woulda, coulda, shoulda. I say that MS will get off essentially scot-free if Bush wins control of the AG. That would imply that you expect that Microsoft would NOT do so, under other Executives. Otherwise, Bush being in office is irrelevant. Its that simple. The converse is "If Bush doesn't win control, then Microsoft won't get off scot-free". That's the counter to your prediction. Its not the case. (at least, not shown so far). Bush wasn't the deciding factor - so predicting based on that predication is mistaken. Not all the world works like "If'n yer ain't fer us, yer agin' us!". Nope, it doesn't. However, in making such a prediction, namely, that ONE circumstance will lead to a situation, by defintion means you've excluded the other. I can predict that the Panthers and the Jaguars (US football teams) will be in the Super Bowl. By defintion, that means that nobody else will. (there being only 2 teams who can). If you said "DoJ will let them off scot-free", sure,. But you qualified that AND placed a restriction on it - IF BUSH WON. Now you're saying that doesn't mean that if BUSH LOST the opposite would occur. Technically possible, but why then would you specify BUSH as the problem? As to your dismissal of the the circumstance that Scott points out (that the DoJ had already won, that they couldn't lose the case anymore), well, I think that you'll see that it heavily influences my opinion. I pointed out a settlement to you - after the findings of fact, after which meant the DoJ had won, that Microsoft was declared a monopoly, where the DoJ was willing to VACATE those findings of fact, in essance, GIVE UP. It was before the appeals court. But it wasn't under Bush, which, let me remind you, IS THE CONDITONAL FOR YOUR PREDICITION. Say there are two muggers and a drunk in a park, and one of the two muggers rolls the drunk. Would you, COULD you defend the offending mugger with "You can't blame the guy, if he didn't do it the other one would have - because of that likelyhood, no blame can be placed? Sorry - I don't buy THAT for a second. Didn't say that. I didn't say the settlement was good, or that it was smart - that's what your analogy would have me do. Its excreble, and undefendable. What you said is "If Bush is elected, one of those muggers will roll the drunk". Bush's election, while he could have stopped it, and in my opinion SHOULD have, doesn't seem to have changed the entire DoJ stance. Something you're blaming him for (implying that there's a difference between his DoJ and Clinton's, and what would ahve been under Gore). I'm not defending this settlement. The DoJ should be ashamed. I'm glad the states balk, and I hope they get to take Microsoft apart in the courtroom. Bush's boys screwed up. BUT no more than Clinton's boys screwed up, or that I know that Gore's boys would have. The only President who would have made a difference would have been Nader. And if THAT'S who you were contrasting with Bush in your prediction, OK, sure, you're right. Addison
Post #17,238 by Simon_Jester 11/7/01 7:17:21 PM Reply	Minor logic problem.... If you said "DoJ will let them off scot-free", sure,. But you qualified that AND placed a restriction on it - IF BUSH WON. Now you're saying that doesn't mean that if BUSH LOST the opposite would occur. A -> B != B -> A
Post #17,240 by imric 11/7/01 7:33:55 PM Reply	Contrast? in making such a prediction, namely, that ONE circumstance will lead to a situation, by defintion means you've excluded the other. I can predict that the Panthers and the Jaguars (US football teams) will be in the Super Bowl. By defintion, that means that nobody else will. (there being only 2 teams who can). So, if I know two bartenders looking for a job at the same pub (We'll call them George and Al) and I predict that George will buy me a beer if he gets the job, that means that I've said that Al wouldn't? Nope. All I've said is that George will. I have not excluded Al from buying me a beer. I might have no trouble believing that Al would buy me a beer as well. If I believe it to be almost certain for one, but only highly likely for the other, am I to be constrained to say that, explicitly? Under what other circumstances am I to be constrained to pay lip service to all possibilities when mentioning one? if BUSH LOST the opposite would occur. Technically possible, but why then would you specify BUSH as the problem? Why? Why opposite? That still sounds like "if'n yer ain't fer us..."! And "BUSH as the problem"? Why must there be one problem? My prediction wasn't unreasonable, heck, it doesn't 'blame' Bush for anything but being true to his economic principles. Bush's boys screwed up. BUT no more than Clinton's boys screwed up, or that I know that Gore's boys would have. Oh, you know that, do you? You predict that, had Gore won, he would have screwed up? By your lights, doesn't that mean that you knew that Bush's boys wouldn't? chuckle I believe there is a causal link between what's happening now and Bush's election. That doesn't preclude my belief that similar effacts might be produced via other events and influences. Gee - would you be able to understand my prediction better if I reworded it for you? How about "If Bush is elected, anti-trust will not be persued rigorously". Or do you think that that means that I am saying it was persued rigorously BEFORE the election? It doesn't, you know. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #17,245 by Simon_Jester 11/7/01 7:46:55 PM Reply	<Evil Grin> <chuckle> Bush's boys screwed up. BUT no more than Clinton's boys screwed up [...] Actually, at least in this case, Clinton's boys didn't screw up, did they? They got the judgement and won the case. This one is entirely Bush throwing away a win. I suspect this is what's REALLY bothering Addison... Clinton did better than Bush. Worse, Janet Reno did better than John Ashcroft.
Post #17,263 by Ashton 11/7/01 9:16:44 PM Reply	It is a Cruel World.
Post #17,295 by jb4 11/8/01 8:21:36 AM Reply	Bingo! I suspect this is what's REALLY bothering Addison... Clinton did better than Bush. Worse, Janet Reno did better than John Ashcroft. I suspect you're right, and a very cogent observation. Minor nit, tho. Wasn't Reno driving the bus when that embarrasment to all past, present and future New Mexicans, Ann Bingamon, wrought that original, failed, so-called "consent decree" that finally made DoJ get of the dime and bust those suckers? If so, your observation is still valid-- Reno: 1 for 2 (.500), Ashhole: 0 for 1 (.000). jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #17,301 by Simon_Jester 11/8/01 9:17:27 AM Reply	I really don't know... nit, tho. Wasn't Reno driving the bus when that embarrasment to all past, present and future New Mexicans, Ann Bingamon, wrought that original, failed, so-called "consent decree" that finally made DoJ get of the dime and bust those suckers? If so, your observation is still valid-- Reno: 1 for 2 (.500), Ashhole: 0 for 1 (.000). The an interesting idea. I'm going to look that one up, for I really don't know.
Post #17,117 by admin 11/7/01 10:13:55 AM Reply	The big difference.... Between then and now: The DOJ didn't have a duly entered GUILTY verdict that withstood even an Appeals Court hearing. Before, they were just settling. This time, they could pretty much do anything they wanted to do to Microsoft (within reason), and they went for a token slap on the wrist settlement with even more loopholes than before. Last time they did that, they didn't have the weight of a court victory behind them. This time they did. I don't know that Bush had a direct hand in this, but his administration (ie. Ashcroft, his selected appointee) certainly did. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,133 by addison 11/7/01 11:37:21 AM Reply	That's true, but... This time, they could pretty much do anything they wanted to do to Microsoft (within reason), and they went for a token slap on the wrist settlement with even more loopholes than before. That's simply, not true. If they wanted to _settle_, as the judge ordered them to, then they had to come up with something that Microsoft would accept. I'd LIKE to think that they've realized the scumbags that are Microsoft, but my point being that they HAVE done something JUST AS DUMB in the past, with NO INPUT FROM BUSH. Thus, just because Bush is now the Prez doesn't mean ergo, that's why they wussed out. I'll remind you that the INITIAL DoJ settlement would have been to put the Netscape install on a Windows CD.. I don't think that's less of a loophole than this deal. Last time they did that, they didn't have the weight of a court victory behind them. This time they did. Yep, and I don't understand their agreement either, I think they got steamrolled by Microsoft again - but it is again. Nothing magically changed between then and now... the DoJ's actions are exactly the same. You're correct about winning the court case - but the LAST settlement attempt was AFTER the findings of fact, and bloody hell, the DoJ was going to wipe that out! Yes, Bush had a hand (indirectly) in the settlement, however; nothing that has been done would indicate any change in the DoJ's stupidity in this matter, thus, anybody saying "I knew it, if Bush got elected" is just bashing Bush. Addison
Post #17,138 by admin 11/7/01 11:59:28 AM Reply	I think you just like to argue. Honestly. That's simply, not true. If they wanted to _settle_, as the judge ordered them to, then they had to come up with something that Microsoft would accept. I'd LIKE to think that they've realized the scumbags that are Microsoft, but my point being that they HAVE done something JUST AS DUMB in the past, with NO INPUT FROM BUSH. Er, no, you're wrong. The DOJ only had to try to settle. The judge didn't order them to settle. She can't. She ordered them to try. The DOJ was perfectly within its rights to insist to MS that they give on all the points. Thus, just because Bush is now the Prez doesn't mean ergo, that's why they wussed out. Didn't say it was, did I. I'll remind you that the INITIAL DoJ settlement would have been to put the Netscape install on a Windows CD.. I don't think that's less of a loophole than this deal. The number of loopholes in this deal is staggering. There was really just one big loophole in the '95 consent decree. You're correct about winning the court case - but the LAST settlement attempt was AFTER the findings of fact, and bloody hell, the DoJ was going to wipe that out! This one is after Microsoft has lost big in the appeals court (and got refused by the Supreme Court as well). I think the both of you are knee-jerking, just in opposite directions. You'll defend against anyone who suggests the Bush Administration had a hand in it, and others will defend against anyone who says they didn't. My point is that, hey, the administrations might not have anything to do with it. You cannot, however, say that nothing else changed. THEY WON THE CASE. Federal, Appeals, and to a certain extent Supreme. That is a substantial difference, any way you look at it, and if that isn't a mandate to hang Microsoft out to dry, I don't know what is. We'll never know what the previous DOJ would have done, because our damned appointees change every few years. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,141 by CRConrad 11/7/01 12:04:02 PM Reply	Yeah, ban him for being so insensitively diruptive! I mean, it's not as if any of the rest of us are so uncouthly argumentative... :-) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #17,154 by addison 11/7/01 1:07:04 PM Reply	Its possible.. But its more that I dislike seeing people gratuitiously bashed. And given what you just said... I'd suggest a check on what you're saying, versus the thread.. Its pretty close to being hypocritical. You'll defend against anyone who suggests the Bush Administration had a hand in it, and others will defend against anyone who says they didn't. That's not true. The Bush administration of course had a hand in it. Never said otherwise. I've argued that nothing changed with the election of Bush. Yes, other things changed, the appeals court, supreme court, new judge appointed, 9/11 (or 11/9 for Peter), but the initial post here, will, if you recall, said that the latest DoJ settlement was the result of Bush being elected. It, quite simply, isn't that simple, nor do the facts back that up. Misconstruing my position to defend Bush doesn't help. The settlement is horrible, ludicrous, and ignorant. But its the same sort of stupidity that's dogged this trial. Thus, the evidence that its Bush "selling out" or anything else is refuted by prior acts. Now, what I am worried about is that Microsoft went to the DoJ, and said quietly, Hey, Guys, tell ya what, we'll settle this, work it out quietly afterward, and we'll give you everything you need to crack bad guy's Windows systems and track 'em. That is what worries me. But again, Clinton wasn't a bastion of freedom in the digitial world, and I don't see Gore doing better ..... The number of loopholes in this deal is staggering. There was really just one big loophole in the '95 consent decree. It helps to keep context. While its possible that you would consider that the "first" - the context of "Netscape" should have corrected you to the start of the post-95 CD goings on. (Since Netscape as a threat, as an issue, didn't exist) I was talking about the initial DoJ position in the latest action (which apparently has dropped off the web). The DoJ's initial position on this was to require Microsoft to only include Netscape on the same CD, and they would be happy, Gates told 'em to shove it, etc. Loopholes? Hell, that's all the DoJ wanted. Under Clinton. Remember, this is about "Bush was elected and sold out". My point is that, hey, the administrations might not have anything to do with it. You cannot, however, say that nothing else changed. You're in the wrong thread. This is the "Its Bush's Fault" thread. And you were saying I liked to argue? :) I didn't say nothing else changed. I said the DoJ's been this stupid under prior administrations, and the mere change in administrations (changing the outcome) isn't supported by any real facts. Those would have to show that realistically, Gore's DoJ would have put the screws to Microsoft. Or at least that Clinton's did. You have a point that they have a stronger bargaining position. Absolutely right. But its a minor point in the fact of the rest of the idocies - regardless of the administration. But Microsoft isn't there to bargain in good faith, and the DoJ doesnt' seem to know that - and its not since 1/20 (or 20/1 for Peter) that this occured. So if you want to accuse me of being argumentative, I must ask you to actually read the thread, number one, and number two, at least get what I'm saying in context... Bush's people had a hand in this. But mostly it was the same lawyers who've been making the same underestimates of Microsoft, the whole trial. So its not anymore Bush's fault than Clinton's, thus the whole premise behind this thread has a problem, hence my attempts to point that out. If you want to nitpick and say that sure, something changed in the meantime, sure, you're right (but again, you're calling ME argumentative?), but it doesn't change the main fact that the DoJ's caved on almost every time - and its been the States driving this case. Addison
Post #17,163 by admin 11/7/01 2:02:54 PM Reply	Re: Its possible.. No, I'm not changing the point of the thread. I'm simply pointing out why the arguments you're using to support your point of view are wrong. Which you're conveniently attempting to sidestep now. :-) Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,198 by addison 11/7/01 4:33:25 PM Reply	Er. No. No, I'm not changing the point of the thread. I'm simply pointing out why the arguments you're using to support your point of view are wrong. Er. That's exactly what you did, Scott. You changed it from "Its Because Bush Won" . The DoJ's stance hasn't changed since this whole case started. Its been the point I've made allthroughout. I've shown other settlement attempts that were equally impotent. Thus, its not "just Bush". Yes, the situation is changed, the DoJ does have more ammunition, that has changed. What hasn't changed is Microsoft's willingness to give in. The point (which you claim not to be changing) is that the DoJ is stupider now than under Clinton, or would have been under Gore. Which you're conveniently attempting to sidestep now. :-) Er. By agreeing that there's a point there, but disagreeing that it has anything to do with the main thread? By showing evidence of the same sort of ignorance? Weird sorta sidestep, there. And you say I'm argumentative? The point is, its no more Bush's fault for this excreble settlement than Clinton's, and nothing shows that it would have been different under Gore. Which other people are taking exception to, having "predicted" that since Bush won, Microsoft would get off scott-free. Well, they're certainly capable of making that claim, but its unsupported by any facts or basis, other than their hatred of Bush. That's the point.... Addison
Post #17,218 by admin 11/7/01 5:31:03 PM Reply	Re: Er. No. Sorry, reread, Addison. You're so busy trying to prove/disprove everything that anyone says here that you're not bothering to read. Here's what I responded to: I said that nothing changed. Ergo - Bush bears no EXTRA blame. It wasn't a CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. and Dude, nothing, NOTHING at all CHANGED. ALL I said was that you could NOT say that NOTHING HAD CHANGED. I think I showed that quite well. They have a guilty verdict in two courts now, and a refusal to hear by the SC. That's a big change. End of my point. Make of it what you will, but I'm done. You're a pain in the ass to talk about anything with sometimes because of this kind of behavior. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,223 by addison 11/7/01 6:05:56 PM Reply	Really? Sorry, reread, Addison. You're so busy trying to prove/disprove everything that anyone says here that you're not bothering to read. Really? Ah well, Irony abounds. Here's what I responded to: I said that nothing changed. Ergo - Bush bears no EXTRA blame. It wasn't a CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. and Dude, nothing, NOTHING at all CHANGED. ALL I said was that you could NOT say that NOTHING HAD CHANGED. You're entirely right. Lots of things changed. Seasons changed, we had a terrorist attack. You're right. I was wrong, some things did change. But that was irrelevant to my prior point, and Oh, BTW, it was after the Findings of Fact with the prior post, but what the hey, just Blame Bush. (Which if you're not doing, its a pretty good impression of it). You're a pain in the ass to talk about anything with sometimes because of this kind of behavior. Well, Scott, Pot, Kettle, AND Black. Jump into a thread, nitpick over something (and now at least I understand your nitpick), and when I agree with you on the nit, start insulting. The point I made, that Bush's election didn't demonstrably affect this, still stands unchallenged, but you did score a nit-pick..... but I'm the one that's hard to deal with. Aha. Addison
Post #17,225 by admin 11/7/01 6:24:00 PM Reply	Re: Really? You're right. I was wrong, some things did change. And since up to that point your entire argument was based on the fact that things DIDN'T change (you WERE using capital letters to get that point across, remember? Probably meant you thought it fairly important, non?), I thought it was pretty significant to point that out. But no, Addison has determined to Win At All Costs so now it's a "nitpick". Well, Scott, Pot, Kettle, AND Black. Jump into a thread, nitpick over something (and now at least I understand your nitpick), and when I agree with you on the nit, start insulting. No, Addison, what you're seeing here are a few gentle (yes, gentle, believe it or not) suggestions from someone who thought he was a friend of yours, pointing out something that you don't even seem to be aware you're doing. I've seen you do this time and time again, turn on someone who's a friend with some pretty harsh "my logic shall defeat you" vitriol. It's not winning you any friends, buddy, and I thought you might like to know. But hey, if that's insulting you then I'll guess I'll just take my lumps and shaddup. Or maybe I'll just stop trying, and maybe I'll just stop considering you a friend, 'cause I'm sick of your behavior. As I said, I'm done. Last word is yours for the taking, etc. etc. etc. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #17,232 by pwhysall 11/7/01 7:01:00 PM Reply	Oi. You two. Flame Off forum. Now. Smokum peace pipe. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #17,167 by Simon_Jester 11/7/01 2:30:05 PM Reply	There may be one huge difference between then and now.... Under Clinton...the DOJ and Microsoft weren't going to settle unless the states agreed. Under Bush...(according to the rumors I'm hearing), the DOJ and Microsoft regardless of whether or not the states agreed. That's a huge difference.
Post #17,204 by addison 11/7/01 4:50:28 PM Reply	If that's true, And I'm not aware of that, that is a difference, you're possibly right. I don't know if they could seperate the case, but in the past, it wasn't seperated. So if the DoJ does, you're right, that's a change (though we don't know what Gore's boys would have done, given the OTHER changes (And it was essentally an either/or, with Bush or Gore)), but I think its safe to blame Bush with some certainty, given that. Addison
Post #17,248 by Simon_Jester 11/7/01 7:58:00 PM 11/7/01 7:58:59 PM Reply	But we do know... So if the DoJ does, you're right, that's a change (though we don't know what Gore's boys would have done, given the OTHER changes (And it was essentally an either/or, with Bush or Gore)), but I think its safe to blame Bush with some certainty, given that. that Clinton didn't. Furthermore, you're forgetting that Bush selects his cabinet. John Ashcroft was personally selected by Bush...if fact they had to fight to get him in. John Ashcroft has receive cash money from Microsoft. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Microsoft founder Bill Gates hailed the settlement, saying it would help the sagging economy. "This settlement is the right result for consumers and businesses, the right result for government and the right result for the economy," said Ashcroft, adding that the new restrictions would help independent software makers be competitive with Microsoft. [...] A judge originally agreed to do that, but the breakup was reversed by a federal appeals court this summer. The Bush administration took the breakup off the table before starting negotiations this fall. President Bush has long urged a settlement in the case but the White House remained on the sidelines during the final days of negotiations led by Justice Department antitrust chief Charles James. [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/11/02/microsoft.agreement.ap/index.html\| source ] Compare this to Janet Reno's comments on the J. Jackson's ruling. ATTY GEN. RENO: Good afternoon. As you know, the court has just announced its remedy in the Microsoft case. I'm pleased that the court has ordered a strong, effective remedy to address the serious antitrust violations that Microsoft has committed. The court's remedy strikes the right balance. The structural remedy will stimulate competition that will have a lasting impact on this important industry, and the interim conduct relief will ensure that Microsoft cannot break the law while the structural provisions are taking effect. [...] The remedy the court ordered -- breaking Microsoft into an operating systems company and an applications company -- is fair, and it's measured. Indeed, it directly flows from the extensive findings and legal conclusions that the courts had previously entered. That's what the law requires, and that's what Judge Jackson did. [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2000/060700microsoftcom.htm\| source ] BTW: You're right, we don't know what Gore might have done. But it ISN'T the point. We KNOW what Bush is doing. Edited by Simon_Jester Nov. 7, 2001, 07:58:59 PM EST Expand All History
Post #17,338 by Another Scott 11/8/01 12:56:44 PM Reply	More quotes. Ashcroft and James made me cringe when I heard them at the press conference announcing the settlement. [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2001/9463.htm\|Here] at the US DOJ. "This settlement will promote innovation, give consumers more choices, and provide the computer industry as a whole with more certainty in the marketplace," said Charles A. James, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. "The goals of the government were to obtain relief that stops Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, prevent any recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore competition in the software market\ufffdwe have achieved those goals." Innovation made me cringe. [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2001/1102newsconference.htm\|Here] is a transcript of the announcement. Maybe it's an attempt to turn MS's language against it, but it still raised red flags with me. I doubt that Ashcroft had much to do with the agreement. I expect he was pretty far removed from it - he's tied up with other things now. But the language seems consistent with Ashcroft's views, as experessed in [link\|http://www.stauffercom.com/letter3.html\|this] 1998 letter. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!