can't go "from" something I never said. Take the time to read my posts, please. I never said he didn't have the right, my second post in the thread clears this up, what is it that keeps you from understanding such well-established things?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
If it's not his business he shouldn't have a right to speak should he? You was getting mad cause Jobs came out and finally said something about the ridiculousness of the idea. Somehow you think its non of his business and he should just shut up.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>What business is it of his?<hr></blockquote></strong>
[quote]<strong>
In your perception, because I dare admit to liking Windows and will defend MS against stupid attacks I am a zealot?
You are a genius.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
When you are apologetic to someone's wrong doings by taking their side you are indeed being a apologist and a zealot. In your eyes no matter what MS does.. they should be allowed to do it. You make excuses (poor ones at that) to try to justify MS's actions.
[quote]<strong>
Links?
Any kind of proof for this at all?
I have never heard of this, and if it is true I'll be more than happy to accept that Apple does have a vested interest in this process. Until then, Apple doesn't.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not sure where it was posted. It was a remedy MS was offering up. It was a bogus one. Why can't MS just give money to these school to buy such equipment? Let the SCHOOLS choose what they want to use. That way it's punishing MS while not giving them more of a monopoly. There shouldn't be a reason why you think they should HAVE to give out MS software.
Microsoft's settlement proposal has drawn harsh criticism from opponents who say if it is implemented, the settlement will give Microsoft a leg up on competitors in the educational market. While Microsoft's plan doesn't call specifically for schools to buy Windows-compatible computers, critics charge that's exactly what will happen in most cases. And Microsoft doesn't deny that much of the software it plans to donate runs on Windows only, further increasing the likelihood that administrators will choose Windows-equipped PCs for their schools over Macintoshes or other computers. Critics also charged that Microsoft's original settlement would give the company too much control over how funds, systems and software were distributed to schools.
Let me ask you this grover. What do you think MS has done wrong to justify it being punished? What do you think it's punishment should be?
[quote]If it's not his business he shouldn't have a right to speak should he?<hr></blockquote>
He has a right to speak. I am not advocating prior restraint, never have, never will. He can come out and say whatever he wants whenever he wants and I won't demand anyone put a gag on him.
My ONLY objection is in regards to the relevance and prudence of Jobs saying it.
You'll notice my first sentence is "What business is it of his?" and not "Microsoft rules, everyone should suck Bill Gates' dick because he's a golden God!"
I know that you aren't very bright, but even you shouldn't confuse the two statements.
[quote]You was getting mad cause Jobs came out and finally said something about the ridiculousness of the idea.<hr></blockquote>
First of all, I wasn't getting mad, I was making a comment on how stupid it was for him to complain. I then backed that up by saying it doesn't have an affect on Apple, so Jobs doesn't have an interest in it.
[quote]Somehow you think its non of his business and he should just shut up.<hr></blockquote>
No, I just think it's not really his business. It's his choice to keep speaking or not, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth (that's a stupid request, I understand, because you'd have nothing to fight against if you weren't constantly creating bogey-men).
[quote]When you are apologetic to someone's wrong doings by taking their side you are indeed being a apologist and a zealot. In your eyes no matter what MS does.. they should be allowed to do it. You make excuses (poor ones at that) to try to justify MS's actions.<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't even make sense. Read what I've written, when have I said anything that might even remotely seem like a defense of Microsoft's actions?
You can make statements about what I think, but I'm afraid I speak for myself and my views are rather clear to those who don't have a difficult time with the English language.
Microsoft has done slimy things in the past. Bill Gates looks like a nerd and I thought it was funny when that guy smacked him with a pie. What else do you want?
[quote]Not sure where it was posted. It was a remedy MS was offering up. It was a bogus one.<hr></blockquote>
So they offered up something that will be beneficial for them (maybe) in the end. Who doesn't try to get the best out of every situation?
It's an under-handed thing to do, but I have a difficult time vilifying them for suggesting this "punishment" when computer companies and companies do similar things day in and day out. If I was looking to Microsoft as a god or something I might be upset by it, as it stands I think it's funny that the .gov would consider this a reasonable punishment.
All of this, of course, is completely beside the point and nothing at all to do with what I have been saying in this particular thread.
[quote]Why can't MS just give money to these school to buy such equipment? Let the SCHOOLS choose what they want to use.<hr></blockquote>
Ok, whatever, talk to MS and the .gov about that. I don't have any control over it.
You say all this with the assumption that I think it's a harsh punishment for Microsoft or that the plan is a good idea. That assumption is incorrect.
[quote]What do you think MS has done wrong to justify it being punished?<hr></blockquote>
They violated some agreement they had signed at some point with PC makers. I believe that's what they're in trouble for. Breaking agreements is naughty and punishable by law.
[quote]What do you think it's punishment should be?<hr></blockquote>
He has a right to speak. I am not advocating prior restraint, never have, never will. He can come out and say whatever he wants whenever he wants and I won't demand anyone put a gag on him.
My ONLY objection is in regards to the relevance and prudence of Jobs saying it.
You'll notice my first sentence is "What business is it of his?" and not "Microsoft rules, everyone should suck Bill Gates' dick because he's a golden God!"
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You basically said jobs should just shut up and not get involved. I am asking you why you think this?
[quote]<strong>
I know that you aren't very bright, but even you shouldn't confuse the two statements
<hr></blockquote></strong>
[quote]<strong>
First of all, I wasn't getting mad, I was making a comment on how stupid it was for him to complain. I then backed that up by saying it doesn't have an affect on Apple, so Jobs doesn't have an interest in it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You didn't back anything up. It DOES have effect on Apple. You failing to see how is proof in your biasness.
[quote]<strong>
No, I just think it's not really his business. It's his choice to keep speaking or not, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth (that's a stupid request, I understand, because you'd have nothing to fight against if you weren't constantly creating bogey-men).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't know of any bogey men I have created grover.. or how this pertains to anything I have said.. You didn't think steve should have said anything plain and simple.
[quote]<strong>
That doesn't even make sense. Read what I've written, when have I said anything that might even remotely seem like a defense of Microsoft's actions?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
In other threads you have. In the first thread about Steve speaking up you acted as if MS didn't do anything wrong in the first place. That is was wrong of the Gov to go against MS.. Want me to bring back logs and quotes? I can if you want.
[quote]<strong>
You can make statements about what I think, but I'm afraid I speak for myself and my views are rather clear to those who don't have a difficult time with the English language.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You hvae spoken for yourself in this issue about MS's guiltiness of anti-competitive behavior have you not?
[quote]<strong>
Microsoft has done slimy things in the past. Bill Gates looks like a nerd and I thought it was funny when that guy smacked him with a pie. What else do you want?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And MS STILL does some nasty things. And is still doing them. They are also guilty of practicing anti-competitive behavior.. something you have a hard time admitting to.
[quote]<strong>
So they offered up something that will be beneficial for them (maybe) in the end. Who doesn't try to get the best out of every situation?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Since when is a company supposed to get the best out of a punishment? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
It's an under-handed thing to do, but I have a difficult time vilifying them for suggesting this "punishment" when computer companies and companies do similar things day in and day out. If I was looking to Microsoft as a god or something I might be upset by it, as it stands I think it's funny that the .gov would consider this a reasonable punishment.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No other company is in the position to do similar things like MS.
[quote]<strong>
All of this, of course, is completely beside the point and nothing at all to do with what I have been saying in this particular thread.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not just in this thread.
[quote]<strong>
Ok, whatever, talk to MS and the .gov about that. I don't have any control over it.
You say all this with the assumption that I think it's a harsh punishment for Microsoft or that the plan is a good idea. That assumption is incorrect.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
So if they made MS pay schools money for computer equipment and not give them the equipment you'd be fine by that?
[quote]<strong>
They violated some agreement they had signed at some point with PC makers. I believe that's what they're in trouble for. Breaking agreements is naughty and punishable by law.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The have been legally told they have violated anti-competitive behavior. They where charged of it. They where found guilty as charged.
[quote]You basically said jobs should just shut up and not get involved. I am asking you why you think this?<hr></blockquote>
I've made this quite clear, it's not prudent because it has nothing to do with him and his company. If he was some industry pundit, sure, but he's the CEO of a major corporation. To use his words, "I thought CEO's were supposed to have class."
[quote]You didn't back anything up. It DOES have effect on Apple. You failing to see how is proof in your biasness.<hr></blockquote>
How does it affect Apple?
You abandoned the claim that it was going to replace Macs when I asked for proof. Until you or anyone can show how the "punishment" would affect Apple in any way I can't really see Jobs' interest in it.
The agreement would put computers where there were none. How does this hurt Apple?
[quote]You didn't think steve should have said anything plain and simple.<hr></blockquote>
He has whatever motives he has, I just don't think it was prudent. That's been my point the entire time.
[quote]In other threads you have. In the first thread about Steve speaking up you acted as if MS didn't do anything wrong in the first place.<hr></blockquote>
The charges that they were convicted on were bullshit (logically) but they were correct (legally). There is a difference.
It's (logical) bullshit that you can't buy weed, but it's (legally) wrong to do so.
You're trying to derail the thread, nice effort.
[quote]Want me to bring back logs and quotes? I can if you want.<hr></blockquote>
Wasn't it you who whined about how it wasn't fair to bring in quotes from other threads?
I guess it's all right when it's not used against you.
(It's ok, I'm willing to give you that handicap, you need it.)
[quote]And MS STILL does some nasty things. And is still doing them. They are also guilty of practicing anti-competitive behavior.. something you have a hard time admitting to.<hr></blockquote>
Because I don't know what nasty things they are doing. Give me an example and we'll talk about it. I won't just take "Well Microsoft is evil, so they MUST be doing something wrong now."
I'm sure they have, whatever, that doesn't interest me. Apple does bad things. Adobe does bad things. Tyson Chicken does bad things. Doesn't interest me.
[quote]Since when is a company supposed to get the best out of a punishment?<hr></blockquote>
Supposed to? I never said that.
I asked if it's not natural to try. Hell, I'd try if I was a heroin dealer, "Check this, judge, I'll give out some free heroin to the rich kids and that'll cover the amount you caught me with, aight?"
It's funny to me if the DOJ accepts the offer, because they aren't punishing Microsoft that harshly. Then again, I don't have a desire to see Microsoft (figuratively) drawn and quartered like you and others do.
[quote]So if they made MS pay schools money for computer equipment and not give them the equipment you'd be fine by that?<hr></blockquote>
Sure, fine, whatever. They could pass the poor kids agreement or make Microsofties kneel on broomsticks for an hour or give Ballmer and Gates a good beating with rubber hoses. I don't care.
[quote]The have been legally told they have violated anti-competitive behavior. They where charged of it. They where found guilty as charged.<hr></blockquote>
And.....?
Do you want a standing ovation smiley for stating common knowledge?
Comments
<strong>
can't go "from" something I never said. Take the time to read my posts, please. I never said he didn't have the right, my second post in the thread clears this up, what is it that keeps you from understanding such well-established things?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
If it's not his business he shouldn't have a right to speak should he? You was getting mad cause Jobs came out and finally said something about the ridiculousness of the idea. Somehow you think its non of his business and he should just shut up.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>What business is it of his?<hr></blockquote></strong>
[quote]<strong>
In your perception, because I dare admit to liking Windows and will defend MS against stupid attacks I am a zealot?
You are a genius.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
When you are apologetic to someone's wrong doings by taking their side you are indeed being a apologist and a zealot. In your eyes no matter what MS does.. they should be allowed to do it. You make excuses (poor ones at that) to try to justify MS's actions.
[quote]<strong>
Links?
Any kind of proof for this at all?
I have never heard of this, and if it is true I'll be more than happy to accept that Apple does have a vested interest in this process. Until then, Apple doesn't.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not sure where it was posted. It was a remedy MS was offering up. It was a bogus one. Why can't MS just give money to these school to buy such equipment? Let the SCHOOLS choose what they want to use. That way it's punishing MS while not giving them more of a monopoly. There shouldn't be a reason why you think they should HAVE to give out MS software.
Microsoft's settlement proposal has drawn harsh criticism from opponents who say if it is implemented, the settlement will give Microsoft a leg up on competitors in the educational market. While Microsoft's plan doesn't call specifically for schools to buy Windows-compatible computers, critics charge that's exactly what will happen in most cases. And Microsoft doesn't deny that much of the software it plans to donate runs on Windows only, further increasing the likelihood that administrators will choose Windows-equipped PCs for their schools over Macintoshes or other computers. Critics also charged that Microsoft's original settlement would give the company too much control over how funds, systems and software were distributed to schools.
Let me ask you this grover. What do you think MS has done wrong to justify it being punished? What do you think it's punishment should be?
He has a right to speak. I am not advocating prior restraint, never have, never will. He can come out and say whatever he wants whenever he wants and I won't demand anyone put a gag on him.
My ONLY objection is in regards to the relevance and prudence of Jobs saying it.
You'll notice my first sentence is "What business is it of his?" and not "Microsoft rules, everyone should suck Bill Gates' dick because he's a golden God!"
I know that you aren't very bright, but even you shouldn't confuse the two statements.
[quote]You was getting mad cause Jobs came out and finally said something about the ridiculousness of the idea.<hr></blockquote>
First of all, I wasn't getting mad, I was making a comment on how stupid it was for him to complain. I then backed that up by saying it doesn't have an affect on Apple, so Jobs doesn't have an interest in it.
[quote]Somehow you think its non of his business and he should just shut up.<hr></blockquote>
No, I just think it's not really his business. It's his choice to keep speaking or not, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth (that's a stupid request, I understand, because you'd have nothing to fight against if you weren't constantly creating bogey-men).
[quote]When you are apologetic to someone's wrong doings by taking their side you are indeed being a apologist and a zealot. In your eyes no matter what MS does.. they should be allowed to do it. You make excuses (poor ones at that) to try to justify MS's actions.<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't even make sense. Read what I've written, when have I said anything that might even remotely seem like a defense of Microsoft's actions?
You can make statements about what I think, but I'm afraid I speak for myself and my views are rather clear to those who don't have a difficult time with the English language.
Microsoft has done slimy things in the past. Bill Gates looks like a nerd and I thought it was funny when that guy smacked him with a pie. What else do you want?
[quote]Not sure where it was posted. It was a remedy MS was offering up. It was a bogus one.<hr></blockquote>
So they offered up something that will be beneficial for them (maybe) in the end. Who doesn't try to get the best out of every situation?
It's an under-handed thing to do, but I have a difficult time vilifying them for suggesting this "punishment" when computer companies and companies do similar things day in and day out. If I was looking to Microsoft as a god or something I might be upset by it, as it stands I think it's funny that the .gov would consider this a reasonable punishment.
All of this, of course, is completely beside the point and nothing at all to do with what I have been saying in this particular thread.
[quote]Why can't MS just give money to these school to buy such equipment? Let the SCHOOLS choose what they want to use.<hr></blockquote>
Ok, whatever, talk to MS and the .gov about that. I don't have any control over it.
You say all this with the assumption that I think it's a harsh punishment for Microsoft or that the plan is a good idea. That assumption is incorrect.
[quote]What do you think MS has done wrong to justify it being punished?<hr></blockquote>
They violated some agreement they had signed at some point with PC makers. I believe that's what they're in trouble for. Breaking agreements is naughty and punishable by law.
[quote]What do you think it's punishment should be?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
<strong>
He has a right to speak. I am not advocating prior restraint, never have, never will. He can come out and say whatever he wants whenever he wants and I won't demand anyone put a gag on him.
My ONLY objection is in regards to the relevance and prudence of Jobs saying it.
You'll notice my first sentence is "What business is it of his?" and not "Microsoft rules, everyone should suck Bill Gates' dick because he's a golden God!"
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You basically said jobs should just shut up and not get involved. I am asking you why you think this?
[quote]<strong>
I know that you aren't very bright, but even you shouldn't confuse the two statements
<hr></blockquote></strong>
[quote]<strong>
First of all, I wasn't getting mad, I was making a comment on how stupid it was for him to complain. I then backed that up by saying it doesn't have an affect on Apple, so Jobs doesn't have an interest in it.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You didn't back anything up. It DOES have effect on Apple. You failing to see how is proof in your biasness.
[quote]<strong>
No, I just think it's not really his business. It's his choice to keep speaking or not, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth (that's a stupid request, I understand, because you'd have nothing to fight against if you weren't constantly creating bogey-men).
<hr></blockquote></strong>
I don't know of any bogey men I have created grover.. or how this pertains to anything I have said..
[quote]<strong>
That doesn't even make sense. Read what I've written, when have I said anything that might even remotely seem like a defense of Microsoft's actions?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
In other threads you have. In the first thread about Steve speaking up you acted as if MS didn't do anything wrong in the first place. That is was wrong of the Gov to go against MS.. Want me to bring back logs and quotes? I can if you want.
[quote]<strong>
You can make statements about what I think, but I'm afraid I speak for myself and my views are rather clear to those who don't have a difficult time with the English language.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You hvae spoken for yourself in this issue about MS's guiltiness of anti-competitive behavior have you not?
[quote]<strong>
Microsoft has done slimy things in the past. Bill Gates looks like a nerd and I thought it was funny when that guy smacked him with a pie. What else do you want?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
And MS STILL does some nasty things. And is still doing them. They are also guilty of practicing anti-competitive behavior.. something you have a hard time admitting to.
[quote]<strong>
So they offered up something that will be beneficial for them (maybe) in the end. Who doesn't try to get the best out of every situation?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Since when is a company supposed to get the best out of a punishment? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
It's an under-handed thing to do, but I have a difficult time vilifying them for suggesting this "punishment" when computer companies and companies do similar things day in and day out. If I was looking to Microsoft as a god or something I might be upset by it, as it stands I think it's funny that the .gov would consider this a reasonable punishment.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
No other company is in the position to do similar things like MS.
[quote]<strong>
All of this, of course, is completely beside the point and nothing at all to do with what I have been saying in this particular thread.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not just in this thread.
[quote]<strong>
Ok, whatever, talk to MS and the .gov about that. I don't have any control over it.
You say all this with the assumption that I think it's a harsh punishment for Microsoft or that the plan is a good idea. That assumption is incorrect.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
So if they made MS pay schools money for computer equipment and not give them the equipment you'd be fine by that?
[quote]<strong>
They violated some agreement they had signed at some point with PC makers. I believe that's what they're in trouble for. Breaking agreements is naughty and punishable by law.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The have been legally told they have violated anti-competitive behavior. They where charged of it. They where found guilty as charged.
I've made this quite clear, it's not prudent because it has nothing to do with him and his company. If he was some industry pundit, sure, but he's the CEO of a major corporation. To use his words, "I thought CEO's were supposed to have class."
[quote]You didn't back anything up. It DOES have effect on Apple. You failing to see how is proof in your biasness.<hr></blockquote>
How does it affect Apple?
You abandoned the claim that it was going to replace Macs when I asked for proof. Until you or anyone can show how the "punishment" would affect Apple in any way I can't really see Jobs' interest in it.
The agreement would put computers where there were none. How does this hurt Apple?
[quote]You didn't think steve should have said anything plain and simple.<hr></blockquote>
He has whatever motives he has, I just don't think it was prudent. That's been my point the entire time.
[quote]In other threads you have. In the first thread about Steve speaking up you acted as if MS didn't do anything wrong in the first place.<hr></blockquote>
The charges that they were convicted on were bullshit (logically) but they were correct (legally). There is a difference.
It's (logical) bullshit that you can't buy weed, but it's (legally) wrong to do so.
You're trying to derail the thread, nice effort.
[quote]Want me to bring back logs and quotes? I can if you want.<hr></blockquote>
Wasn't it you who whined about how it wasn't fair to bring in quotes from other threads?
I guess it's all right when it's not used against you.
(It's ok, I'm willing to give you that handicap, you need it.)
[quote]And MS STILL does some nasty things. And is still doing them. They are also guilty of practicing anti-competitive behavior.. something you have a hard time admitting to.<hr></blockquote>
Because I don't know what nasty things they are doing. Give me an example and we'll talk about it. I won't just take "Well Microsoft is evil, so they MUST be doing something wrong now."
I'm sure they have, whatever, that doesn't interest me. Apple does bad things. Adobe does bad things. Tyson Chicken does bad things. Doesn't interest me.
[quote]Since when is a company supposed to get the best out of a punishment?<hr></blockquote>
Supposed to? I never said that.
I asked if it's not natural to try. Hell, I'd try if I was a heroin dealer, "Check this, judge, I'll give out some free heroin to the rich kids and that'll cover the amount you caught me with, aight?"
It's funny to me if the DOJ accepts the offer, because they aren't punishing Microsoft that harshly. Then again, I don't have a desire to see Microsoft (figuratively) drawn and quartered like you and others do.
[quote]So if they made MS pay schools money for computer equipment and not give them the equipment you'd be fine by that?<hr></blockquote>
Sure, fine, whatever. They could pass the poor kids agreement or make Microsofties kneel on broomsticks for an hour or give Ballmer and Gates a good beating with rubber hoses. I don't care.
[quote]The have been legally told they have violated anti-competitive behavior. They where charged of it. They where found guilty as charged.<hr></blockquote>
And.....?
Do you want a standing ovation smiley for stating common knowledge?
2+2=4, where's my cookie?