RE: Consider this

["Kendall G. Clark" <kclark@computek.net>]

  On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, David E. Y. Sarna wrote:
  
  >> Disney and Time Warner both today announced that they will be using
  >IE-only
  >> features to communicate their content. That really sucks.
  >> 
  >Why does it suck? Would you feel the same way if the same folks had
  >taken advantage of a Netscape-only feature? Would you be up in arms
  >about that? 
  
  Yes I would be equally upset, and if you had read \\all\\ of my post you would
  see that I already admitted as much. You really ought to read all of my post
  before jumping on something you think gives you a point.
  
  I said, in my original post, that:
  
  >Note: this isn't a pro-Netscape note by implication; insofar as Netscape
  >deviates from open Internet standards, they are guilty too. Not as guilty as
  >MS since they don't cram their browser down throats like MS, but they are
  >guilty of similar violations. 
  
  [snippage]
  
  >If you don't like products that use certain features, you are free to vote
  >with your feet and not use them. Do you really think that the government
  >should be in the business of regulating software features? 
  
  See this is the whole gist of your misunderstanding of my position: of course
  I don't think that the government should regulate software features. But as I
  have said over and over (I have tired of saying it and I'm sure you all have
  tired of reading it):  my argument with MS, and my appraisal of MS, isn't
  primarily LEGAL or REGULATORY. Should I say that again? Do you speak another
  language in which I could make the same claim, and that would be easier for
  you to understand? 
  
  My criticisms of MS and my future appraisal of MS are MORAL criticisms. Now if
  you don't acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to human commerce, then
  of course we are never going to get anywhere in a rational discussion. I don't
  primarily care about the legal aspect of MS. I'm not a judge, a lawyer, a
  court, a law, a jury. I am a human being with a particular moral sensibility
  that MS just happens to step on pretty consistently. 
  
  That's my point, a moral point. Sheesh...is it really that complicated?
  
  Am I not allowed somehow to make moral criticisms of MS? Is that inappropriate
  here?
  
  Imagine the audacity: peon individual dares to make a moral critique of big
  powerful corporation! What cunning, what daring! What do I think I am? An
  Amerian? Someone with the right to free expression?
  
  Have you ever heard of the American muckrakers? Have you ever heard of Upton
  Sinclair?
  
  Best,
  
  	Kendall Clark