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
