Re: "Racism, Satanism, & Fanaticism" The truth revealed.

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

  In response to my metaphor concerning MS control (Only MSenglish taught
  in our schools, only MS sanctioned publications allowed to print MSenglish) 
  I received the following reply, which I feel should not be excluded from the list. 
  
  On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:57:22 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
  >Then send your kids to a different school, start your own, or change your
  >school's policies. Besides, your metaphor is hysterical and does your cause
  >no good. You might as well just be done with it already:argue Bill Gates is
  >Satan and must be eliminated at any cost.
  
  First, most people don't have the resources to just "send your kids to a different
  school" and SINCE THIS IS A METAPHOR, the whole point was that without
  the clout of someone like MS, I can't just "change (the entire) school (systems)'s policies".
  Hysterical? And I suppose that your suggestion that we  just scrap the whole
  system and convert to communism isn't hysterical? My "cause"? My objections
  to the continued illegal practices of a corporate entity  is now a "cause"?
  And what is this obsession you have with "Bill Gates is Satan"? What I SAID was
  that the whole line of references to the metaphysical was ridiculous. I made no
  such arguement, nor implied anything so irrational. MS doesn't have to be EVIL
  incarnate to be harmful to the public or guilty of breaking our laws governing commerce.
  
  >Somehow this argument fails to convince. Some "antidiscrimination" laws go
  >to far and infringe upon rights of assembly.
  
  To paraphrase your own response - Then just send your kids to another country
  or change your governments policies and laws.
  
  >If consumers are being harmed, they certainly don't seem to be aware of it.
  >They're buying M$ product by the gross (an appropriate word for MSFT
  >products, somehow). Guess you know better than they do, eh? Pardon me if
  >I'm skeptical.
  
  Skeptical that I know better or skeptical that they are being harmed by "gross"
  products? Consumers who aren't aware they are being harmed.......hmm....no that 
  never happens in America does it? Poor quality products never sell here do they?
  If "popular" choices implied quality goods or knowledgable consumers, then Bill 
  Gates would never have made his first million, and you know that to be true. This 
  country is overflowing with examples of consumer behavior that does not demonstrate
  good judgement. You can't possibly believe that the public knows best BECAUSE they
  buy mostly one brand of product  (or accept free or vastly reduced priced goods).
  If people only bought quality products, and then only those they needed, that 
  recent "correction" of the DOW would pale in comparison to the avalanche of
  falling stocks to follow. Do you also think that television produces such a "high" quality
  product  because the "public knows best" and would not put up with an inferior lineup?
  
  >Besides, a look at history shows that antitrust investigations are
  >politically motivated. Read David Burnham's book "Above the law" about DoJ.
  
  Politically motivated? Okay, I'll bite. Which politician(s) will benefit from this
  particular investigation of MS? I haven't read "Above the Law" but I do believe
  that segments of our own government have acted in the past to serve their own interests
  and not that of the public. There are many examples of the high and mighty scoffing
  at the law's attempts to administer justice, or at least appearing to be above the law.  
  So, again I ask, who profits from this investigation and how is that a conflict of interest for
  our public servants? 
  
  Your  last statement is so revealing I must confirm your meaning.
  >Companies defending antitrust suits aren't violating the law as much as not
  >spending enough to buy it. >-Declan
  
  So, MS is not as much guilty of violating the law as they are guilty of not paying enough
  bribes to keep the law at bay? Am I right in that interpretation of your statement? And
  to follow that, then only the innocent and pure of heart are ever investigated, solely for 
  the crime of refusing to contribute to the corruption of the law. Have I got that right?
  
  
  To summarize my interpretations of your statements,
  
  If MS controls the market, I should "just switch" to another market or "just change" the policies
  of that market (as in just "send your kids to another school"). 
  
  I'm hysterical because everything I say is interpreted by you to mean Bill Gates is Satan.
  
  Consumers are not being harmed BECAUSE they are not aware of any such harm. 
  
  Those who purchase M$ products by the gross must know best BECAUSE they are 
  buying M$ products by the gross.
  
  Antitrust investigations are suspect at best and crimes in progress at worst BECAUSE
  they are 1) politically motivated, and 2) only an indication of the GUILT of the investigators
  and the INNOCENCE of those being investigated.
  
  Thank you, and may we all benefit from your insights.
  
  
  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