[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: AM-INFO digest 28 David Sarna & "Bill"
After the first response, I thought this might be resolved in private, but after
the second, I thought it best to include the entire group in this exchange.
In response to my (hopefully)humorous aside about "Bill", his tax returns
and Mr. Sarna's implied familiarity, I received the following;
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:45:13 -0500, David E. Y. Sarna wrote:
>I am not a personal friend of Bill Gates. The Foundation put out a press
>release when it was set up. Foundation tax returns, by the way can be
>gotten at by anyone.
>Speaking of honesty, who is paying you?
To which I reply
Perhaps my implication was too flippant, but it seemed an appropriate
response to someone who seems to find their obvious conflict of interest
irrelavent to the present discussion of Microsoft's business practices. I am payed
by the state of Nebraska, via the University of Nebraska. I am a teacher and
a scientist, and as both I am used to a careful review of the facts and their
interpretations. It is the final true performance of software that I appreciate, not
the marketing savy of its manufacturer. If I offer a physician a new diagnostic
tool to help them make life or death decisions, I sincerely doubt that Microsoft's
stock value will be of comfort when the system crashes at a critical moment.
And I am not on the mailing list for "The Foundation". I use OS/2 because it was
and is the most efficient use of my computing resources and was the only intel
-platform option capable of tackling my data acquisition and analysis requirements
when I first chose to use it (V1.1). I am not making money, directly or indirectly, by
my choice of operating systems (on the contrary, see below). I am not a reseller
or any other form of middleman. And I deeply resent the roadblocks and ADDED
COSTS that Microsoft has created for me and others who have chosen the vastly
superior OS/2. Your bank is far more likely to be running OS/2 than NT, and you
should be grateful for that. I need the same efficiency, accuracy and security (if not
more) when analysing patient data (in my case brainwave files - EEGs) that your
bank requires to do business. And YOUR profit margin ought to be as irrelevent to the
discussion of the legality of Microsoft's business practices as Microsoft's profit
margin is to the question of how reliably their software performs. But their "right"
to make profits and OUR supposed "envy" of their bottom line keeps cropping up
in this discussion. Many may see the world through an accounting sheet, but that
is not why we are here in this virtual space.
And following my posting on the association of the words "FREE" and "egalitarian"
I received the following;
"comparing free software with drugs is repulsive and offensive. Civilized
people debating the proprietary of Microsoft's marketing techniques
ought restrain their personal anger enough to be able to conduct civil
dialogue. Those who can't should see a psychiatrist."
David E. Y. Sarna firstname.lastname@example.org
To which I reply;
The "marketing" approach and its predicted outcome are the same for "free"
software and drugs. The "customer" is introduced to a "product" that they might
not otherwise choose to try, and once accepted, their choices are significantly
limited to more of the same product from the same source for a significant price.
It is only repulsive and offensive if you identify with the marketing approach as
an accepted personal practice, and recognize the power of the metaphor. I don't
perceive "anger" in my posting. And as to seeing a psychiatrist....let me make a few
observations. The choice of "civilized people" as opposed to civil discussion,
belies the expressed intent of focusing on the subject matter and not the participants.
The choice of "proprietary" (of Microsoft's marketing techniques) as opposed to propriety
appear to me to be a significantly revealing Freudian slip. The tone of this last response
would indicate that the accusation of personal anger is what is commonly referred to,
in clinical terms, as projection. And the inherent conflict between the body of the message
and the signature (Regards) might reflect an equally conflicting outward projection and
inner identity. But then, I'm not a psychiatrist.
And to Mr. Clark, I do appreciate the difference between the motivations of the Linix
and MS. I could not identify the correct context for your statement about free and
egalitarian, and chose to address the whole of the discussion and MS's use of the
term "FREE", as most appropriate for this forum. My apologies for reaching an
Offered in the interests of discussion, humor and peace, sincerely,
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
Director of Perinatal Research
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of Nebraska Medical Center
600 South 42nd Street
Omaha, NE 68198-3255