[Am-info] Billie's propaganda machine in Massachusetts

[Erick Andrews]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:38:39 -0500, John J. Urbaniak wrote:

>Isn't ACT a paid Microsoft lobbying group?  If so, why didn't the
>article metion that?
>
>John
>
>
<snip>

I believe you are correct.  I'm quite sure someone on this list
found that out last year.  Anyone care to take credit?

My theories on why no mention about them:

a)  their "journalism" is abysmal or nonexistent,

b)  this publisher is in MS's pocket, too.

I'll lean toward "a)" because if you carefully read the 
end of the article, I quote...

> As far as Howard Diamond is concened, the proposal
> would be just a glancing blow to Microsoft but
> would cream smaller firms like his Corporate
> Software Inc.
>
> "For most software developers, you are talking
> about dramatically increasing the burden on
> them,'' said Diamond, the chief executive of the
> Norwood company.  Worse, Diamond said, "nothing in
> their proposal does anything for consumers.''
>

...it's not abundantly clear of which "proposal" Mr
Diamond speaks, nor what his point really is.

Well, it's confusing to me anyways, in or out of context.

I don't quite get which proposal will cause a burden on him.
It seems to me that if he agrees with the proposal of the DoJ
and the turncoat states, his software development costs will 
dramatically increase with .Net, C#, etc., as MS speeds up
the treadmill.  If he agrees with $80billion that Liebowitz in
Texas fluffed up, he was already on MS's bigot bandwagon, 
else he's got an IQ less than the Easter Bunny.

-- 
Erick Andrews