Re: My Reply to The article...

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Right, you didn't say he had no right to speak.
That said, I must confess I find your constant defense of conventional wisdom
annoying.  I highly doubt you or anyone could hold your job with Time magazine if
you held and consistently advocated the position that the Microsoft monopoly should
be broken on antitrust grounds.  Although, the winds are changing and soon that may
no longer be the case.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Nowhere did I say Chris had no right to speak. But by all means, keep
> beating on that straw man some more. As for how Chris could get his
> opinion (better informed or not), the op-ed pages of newspapers would seem
> to be a likely start. But he'll have competition: just about everyone and
> their teen sister are writing about Microsoft nowadays.
>
> -Declan
>
> On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Steve Cohen wrote:
>
> > Well, you're right that the original article is an editorial, not a report,
> > and Chris probably shouldn't attack it on that basis.  That said, Chris has
> > as much right to voice his opinion to the author as the author does to vent
> > his ill-informed nonsense.  If you have a better suggestion for how Chris
> > could get his much-better informed opinion into the mass media, I'm sure he'd
> > love to hear it.
> >
> > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >
> > > I think the article's author is sadly confused about the consent decree
> > > and what the implications are for this lawsuit. Besides, it's not an
> > > especially interesting point of view.
> > >
> > > That said, it's perfectly appropriate for ZDNET to run opinion pieces.
> > > It's not reporting, folks. It's *opinion*. Get with it, already.
> > >
> > > -Declan
> > >
> > > On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Chris Pall wrote:
> > >
> > > >     As I was saying, before my computer (win95) crashed:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/zdnn/0421/308966.html
> > > >     This is the biggest piece of fluff reporting I have ever seen. Not
> > > > only is there not a single fact contained in it, but the broad
> > > > generalizations are incomplete and inaccuarate.
> > > >
> > > >     The worse part about this article is the fact that you state that
> > > > you know there is an anti-trust issue here. But you chose to ignore it.
> > > > How can you? and Why? Because it makes technological sense? Because
> > > > integration makes technological sense? This is why Microsoft should be
> > > > allowed to integrate a product that clearly was intended to destroy
> > > > Netscape? For those who were here in 94-95, Microsoft wasn't even
> > > > thinking about the internet. If Bil Gates is willing to rewrite a book
> > > > to cover up his lac of a technological fortune telling ability, you can
> > > > be certain, Microsoft is willing to cut off heads to try and protect
> > > > itself (despite the unethical implications)
> > > >
> > > > No sir, you cannot ignore the facts of the case. Even if what Microsoft
> > > > is doing is "user-friendly" or "technologically" appropriate. (which is
> > > > debatable anyway, I'm still stinging from that mini-crash as is Bill
> > > > Gates)
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >                        Christopher Pall
> > > >                       ThinkBiz, DPS, WMU
> > > >                        Ann Arbor, MI USA
> > > >
> > > >                       x97pall@wmich.edu
> > > >        http://members.tripod.com/~ChrisPall/index.html
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >