Can't say I've seen you explain this distinction you (now claim to) make very much, if at all... But OK, never mind that.

Then you're just being insulting, for I replied to you the other day with exactly that distinction on YOUR misconception.

It just came UP the other day, when you made it up, and I corrected it.

And now you're saying that somehow its my fault for your failure to bother to read it?

No, don't never mind that.

No I don't -- that's just you presuming (explicitly) that I do.

Its the impression that I received. My apologies if thats incorrect.

I know, I know... And I wish you'd STOP, dammit, because I've NEVER SAID you said it wasn't needed.

That's what I interpreted " throw -- don't give! -- it away, because that's just not true." to mean.

What I am actually saying is, it's even MORE necessary than you're acknowledging, because the market actually DOESN'T correct ALL such "errors", in either the short OR the long run.

I still believe that it will. You can of course disagree with me, and apparently you will.

But I'll point to things like IBM/Sun/Oracle/etc/etc/etc's support of Linux as evidence - the market will work around a monopoly (or attempt to). Even without the DoJ's attempt to reign in Microsoft's monopoly, the rest of the market is reacting (to push it back into equilbrium).

Addison