Zzxzzzzzz....

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!