RE: AM-INFO digest 28 David Sarna & "Bill"

["Glenn T. Livezey" <glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu>]

  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."
  Regards,
  David E. Y. Sarna       davids@objectsoftcorp.com
  
  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 
  unintended target.
  
  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
  Phone- 402-559-8064
  FAX- 402-559-7126
  e-mail glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu