If you are pissed with Microsoft de-facto monopoly...

[Z***@hotmail.com]

This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

--------------------------------
Dear Sir,

When I tried to access the Citibank site
https://www.myhomeequity.com/MHE/home.do?sc=0 using my default browser
- Mozilla, I received a message that the only way I can access this
site is by using Microsoft IE. It happens to me with other sites too.
When I use Microsoft IE my computer constantly crashes, so I prefer to
use Mozilla. I also own other computers with Linux, and there is no IE
for Linux. Today the Internet is a standard way for many consumer
products and by forcing consumers to use Microsoft products, it is
like forcing drivers to use Ford cars on some highways.
Please sponser a law that any US comercial Internet site must accept
any Internet browser that adheres to established standards, without
regard of OS or browser maker.
----------------------------------------------

Zalek Bloom

[Chris Clement]

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.
--------------------------------
Dear Sir,
When I tried to access the Citibank sitehttps://www.myhomeequity.com/MHE/home.do?sc=0using my default browser
- Mozilla, I received a message that the only way I can access this
site is by using Microsoft IE. It happens to me with other sites too.
When I use Microsoft IE my computer constantly crashes, so I prefer to
use Mozilla. I also own other computers with Linux, and there is no IE
for Linux. Today the Internet is a standard way for many consumer
products and by forcing consumers to use Microsoft products, it is
like forcing drivers to use Ford cars on some highways.
Please sponser a law that any US comercial Internet site must accept
any Internet browser that adheres to established standards, without
regard of OS or browser maker.
----------------------------------------------
Zalek Bloom

Waste of time. The only thing the government cares about is $$$$$$$.

[Dean G.]

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.
--------------------------------
Dear Sir,
When I tried to access the Citibank sitehttps://www.myhomeequity.com/MHE/home.do?sc=0usingmy default browser
- Mozilla, I received a message that the only way I can access this
site is by using Microsoft IE. It happens to me with other sites too.
When I use Microsoft IE my computer constantly crashes, so I prefer to
use Mozilla. I also own other computers with Linux, and there is no IE
for Linux. Today the Internet is a standard way for many consumer
products and by forcing consumers to use Microsoft products, it is
like forcing drivers to use Ford cars on some highways.
Please sponser a law that any US comercial Internet site must accept
any Internet browser that adheres to established standards, without
regard of OS or browser maker.
----------------------------------------------
Zalek Bloom

Waste of time. The only thing the government cares about is $$$$$$$.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then perhaps you should tell your representative that the government
spends millions of dollars, and perhaps far more, coding for
Microsoft's non-standards compliant browser, IE. The government is is
essence susidizing Microsoft, and also engaging in anti-competative
behavior by favoring a single company with a massive government
subisdy without any legislation allowing such a subsidy.

Tell your congressman that all government web sites should be written
strictly to the standards, and if Microsoft or any other company want
it done otherwise, then that company can pay to have it done instead
of expecting a huge corporate welfare type subsidy. Alternatively, the
government should bill Microsoft for the work done.

Dean G.

[Chris Clement]

Post by Dean G.

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.
--------------------------------
Dear Sir,
When I tried to access the Citibank sitehttps://www.myhomeequity.com/MHE/home.do?sc=0usingmydefault browser
- Mozilla, I received a message that the only way I can access this
site is by using Microsoft IE. It happens to me with other sites too.
When I use Microsoft IE my computer constantly crashes, so I prefer to
use Mozilla. I also own other computers with Linux, and there is no IE
for Linux. Today the Internet is a standard way for many consumer
products and by forcing consumers to use Microsoft products, it is
like forcing drivers to use Ford cars on some highways.
Please sponser a law that any US comercial Internet site must accept
any Internet browser that adheres to established standards, without
regard of OS or browser maker.
----------------------------------------------
Zalek Bloom

Waste of time. The only thing the government cares about is $$$$$$$.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then perhaps you should tell your representative that the government
spends millions of dollars, and perhaps far more, coding for
Microsoft's non-standards compliant browser, IE. The government is is
essence susidizing Microsoft, and also engaging in anti-competative
behavior by favoring a single company with a massive government
subisdy without any legislation allowing such a subsidy.
Tell your congressman that all government web sites should be written
strictly to the standards, and if Microsoft or any other company want
it done otherwise, then that company can pay to have it done instead
of expecting a huge corporate welfare type subsidy. Alternatively, the
government should bill Microsoft for the work done.

Then my congressman will yawn and move on to issues in which the vast
majority of the public really care about. I hear what you are saying
and I agree with much of it, but this is just not a hot political
topic. If I had enough money to bribe....I mean.....finance some
campaigns then maybe.

[MuahMan]

Puts a smile on my face when the Mac Jihad go off the deep end like this. :)

Like there aren't more pressing needs to take care of. NO! The government
must make Apple GROW damn it!!!

[John Slade]

Post by Dean G.

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.
--------------------------------
Dear Sir,
When I tried to access the Citibank
sitehttps://www.myhomeequity.com/MHE/home.do?sc=0usingmy default
browser
- Mozilla, I received a message that the only way I can access this
site is by using Microsoft IE. It happens to me with other sites too.
When I use Microsoft IE my computer constantly crashes, so I prefer to
use Mozilla. I also own other computers with Linux, and there is no IE
for Linux. Today the Internet is a standard way for many consumer
products and by forcing consumers to use Microsoft products, it is
like forcing drivers to use Ford cars on some highways.
Please sponser a law that any US comercial Internet site must accept
any Internet browser that adheres to established standards, without
regard of OS or browser maker.
----------------------------------------------
Zalek Bloom

Waste of time. The only thing the government cares about is $$$$$$$.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then perhaps you should tell your representative that the government
spends millions of dollars, and perhaps far more, coding for
Microsoft's non-standards compliant browser, IE. The government is is
essence susidizing Microsoft, and also engaging in anti-competative
behavior by favoring a single company with a massive government
subisdy without any legislation allowing such a subsidy.
Tell your congressman that all government web sites should be written
strictly to the standards, and if Microsoft or any other company want
it done otherwise, then that company can pay to have it done instead
of expecting a huge corporate welfare type subsidy. Alternatively, the
government should bill Microsoft for the work done.

I hope this is a joke. Nobody is forced to use Windows or IE for that
matter. In fact there are standards compliant browsers that work in Windows.
In fact IE is a standards compliant browser even if it used a different
standard than everyone else. The government will find a way to waste any
money saved. The best protest you guys can ever have against Microsoft is to
download a Unix or Linux version. That way you will not be subsidizing any
computer companies. If most people decided to download free OSes it would
send a message to Microsoft and Apple to put out better products than what
they put out now.

John

[zalek]

Post by John Slade

Post by Dean G.

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.
--------------------------------
Dear Sir,
When I tried to access the Citibank
sitehttps://www.myhomeequity.com/MHE/home.do?sc=0usingmydefault
browser
- Mozilla, I received a message that the only way I can access this
site is by using Microsoft IE. It happens to me with other sites too.
When I use Microsoft IE my computer constantly crashes, so I prefer to
use Mozilla. I also own other computers with Linux, and there is no IE
for Linux. Today the Internet is a standard way for many consumer
products and by forcing consumers to use Microsoft products, it is
like forcing drivers to use Ford cars on some highways.
Please sponser a law that any US comercial Internet site must accept
any Internet browser that adheres to established standards, without
regard of OS or browser maker.
----------------------------------------------
Zalek Bloom

Waste of time. The only thing the government cares about is $$$$$$$.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Then perhaps you should tell your representative that the government
spends millions of dollars, and perhaps far more, coding for
Microsoft's non-standards compliant browser, IE. The government is is
essence susidizing Microsoft, and also engaging in anti-competative
behavior by favoring a single company with a massive government
subisdy without any legislation allowing such a subsidy.
Tell your congressman that all government web sites should be written
strictly to the standards, and if Microsoft or any other company want
it done otherwise, then that company can pay to have it done instead
of expecting a huge corporate welfare type subsidy. Alternatively, the
government should bill Microsoft for the work done.

I hope this is a joke. Nobody is forced to use Windows or IE for that
matter. In fact there are standards compliant browsers that work in Windows.
In fact IE is a standards compliant browser even if it used a different
standard than everyone else. The government will find a way to waste any
money saved. The best protest you guys can ever have against Microsoft is to
download a Unix or Linux version. That way you will not be subsidizing any
computer companies. If most people decided to download free OSes it would
send a message to Microsoft and Apple to put out better products than what
they put out now.
John

John,

My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could. My
point is - that the same way government regulates radio frequencies,
car emission or airborn traffic - the government should establish a
standard (I don't care if it is a MS standard) for internet browsers.
And this is a reason I ask you guys to write letters to your
representatives. The more letters we write, the bigger chance that
government will do something - and this action will not send Bill
Gates broke.

[Ryan P.]

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could. My
point is - that the same way government regulates radio frequencies,
car emission or airborn traffic - the government should establish a
standard (I don't care if it is a MS standard) for internet browsers.
And this is a reason I ask you guys to write letters to your
representatives. The more letters we write, the bigger chance that
government will do something - and this action will not send Bill
Gates broke.

Government regulation is good in some instances, but I don't think it
would be good in this instance. They would create standards based on
information that is out-of-date, and it would hold back innovation.

Imagine being stuck with IE 7 for 10 years because the government
couldn't figure out what improvements it liked.

[Lefty Bigfoot]

Post by Ryan P.

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could. My
point is - that the same way government regulates radio frequencies,
car emission or airborn traffic - the government should establish a
standard (I don't care if it is a MS standard) for internet browsers.
And this is a reason I ask you guys to write letters to your
representatives. The more letters we write, the bigger chance that
government will do something - and this action will not send Bill
Gates broke.

Government regulation is good in some instances, but I don't think it
would be good in this instance. They would create standards based on
information that is out-of-date, and it would hold back innovation.

No need for the government to "create standards". Simply
requiring all government agencies publishing content for
external (i.e. non-private, or non-secret data via the internet)
to do so using open standards, so that they are accessible for
all, not just those that choose a broken, albeit popular
platform.

[Clockmeister]

Post by Lefty Bigfoot

Post by Ryan P.

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could. My
point is - that the same way government regulates radio frequencies,
car emission or airborn traffic - the government should establish a
standard (I don't care if it is a MS standard) for internet browsers.
And this is a reason I ask you guys to write letters to your
representatives. The more letters we write, the bigger chance that
government will do something - and this action will not send Bill
Gates broke.

Government regulation is good in some instances, but I don't think it
would be good in this instance. They would create standards based on
information that is out-of-date, and it would hold back innovation.

No need for the government to "create standards". Simply
requiring all government agencies publishing content for
external (i.e. non-private, or non-secret data via the internet)
to do so using open standards, so that they are accessible for
all, not just those that choose a broken, albeit popular
platform.

It's not broken, it just exceeds the standard.

[zalek]

Post by Ryan P.

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could. My
point is - that the same way government regulates radio frequencies,
car emission or airborn traffic - the government should establish a
standard (I don't care if it is a MS standard) for internet browsers.
And this is a reason I ask you guys to write letters to your
representatives. The more letters we write, the bigger chance that
government will do something - and this action will not send Bill
Gates broke.

Government regulation is good in some instances, but I don't think it
would be good in this instance. They would create standards based on
information that is out-of-date, and it would hold back innovation.
ImaginebeingstuckwithIE7 for 10yearsbecausethe government
couldn't figure out what improvements it liked.

I am not so pesimistic - YOU CAN define standards they will not hold
you down - you define the minimal set of instructions that every
browse MUST understand. If MS wants to define more instructions - it
is still OK, as long as COMMERCIAL sites will not drop browsers that
are not using this instructions. Now we are in a state were government
interversion is needed - it will reduce price wordprocessors and
spreadsheets and will make programming of web pages much easier.

Zalek

[Mitch]

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could.

You don't understand the purpose of a corporation at all.
You don't understand what it is trying to do, what it should do, or
what it must in order to do the other things.

It sounds like you are framing what corporations should do as what
Microsoft has been doing -- placing Microsoft as the pinnacle of
exactly what a corporation must be. That's just so WRONG it can't be
excused.

[zalek]

Post by Mitch

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could.

You don't understand the purpose of a corporation at all.
You don't understand what it is trying to do, what it should do, or
what it must in order to do the other things.
It sounds like you are framing what corporations should do as what
Microsoft has been doing -- placing Microsoft as the pinnacle of
exactly what a corporation must be. That's just so WRONG it can't be
excused.

Well, if I am wrong - please correct me. What is a purpose the purpose
of corporation?

Zalek

[Lefty Bigfoot]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:37:14 -0600, zalek wrote
(in article

Post by zalek

Post by Mitch

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could.

You don't understand the purpose of a corporation at all.
You don't understand what it is trying to do, what it should do, or
what it must in order to do the other things.
It sounds like you are framing what corporations should do as what
Microsoft has been doing -- placing Microsoft as the pinnacle of
exactly what a corporation must be. That's just so WRONG it can't be
excused.

Well, if I am wrong - please correct me. What is a purpose the purpose
of corporation?

Line the pockets of the execs as much as possible without
getting caught.

[Mitch]

Post by zalek

Post by Mitch

Post by zalek
My letter is not a protest against MS - MS is doing what every good
corporation should do - to milk consumers as much as they could.

You don't understand the purpose of a corporation at all.
You don't understand what it is trying to do, what it should do, or
what it must in order to do the other things.
It sounds like you are framing what corporations should do as what
Microsoft has been doing -- placing Microsoft as the pinnacle of
exactly what a corporation must be. That's just so WRONG it can't be
excused.

Well, if I am wrong - please correct me. What is a purpose the purpose
of corporation?

Typically, you can't say much other than 'to stay in business.'
After that, the attitudes and intentions and real behaviors of a
corporation (and every different perspective on them) come into play
too much to say anything meaningful.

For instance, your summary above is investor-centric and extremely
anti-consumer. That is, it assumes the consumer is to be fought and
overcome. Companies with excellent products that are recognized as
excellent don't take that attitude, and companies with poor products
that can't stand the light of consumer review often take that attitude.

For everything in between those, it's hard to pin down the 'purpose' of
a company or corporation much. But it's very cynical and pessimistic to
assume that all corporations exist and plan primarily to fight and
overcome the consumer for his dollar.

[MuahMan]

WTF!?!! I thought everything "Just Worked" on Macs. Ad this to the list of
hundreds, yea thousands of things you can't do on your Mac...... banking.

Of course you could boot to Windows on your mac just to do your banking....
LOL on, and to do your work..... and and and and...

[LazarX]

Post by MuahMan
WTF!?!! I thought everything "Just Worked" on Macs. Ad this to the list
of hundreds, yea thousands of things you can't do on your Mac......
banking.
Of course you could boot to Windows on your mac just to do your
banking.... LOL on, and to do your work..... and and and and...

I manage my Bank of America accounts, pay my Comcast, PSE&G, and Vonage
bills, as well as my Columbiahouse and NY Times subscriptions all on
my eMac. I also use it for my Desktop Publishing and image editing work.
I use my Windows machine for games.

[Daniel Mandic]

and image editing work. I use my Windows machine for games.

That's your problem!


Why don't you tell your story to a haircutter!?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Clockmeister]

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.
--------------------------------

How is it MS's fault that your browser is shit?

How about sending a message to the developers of your browser asking them to
support the site and stop trying to hold everyone else back because you want
to use a shite browser?

[Z***@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:57:48 +0900, "Clockmeister"

Post by Clockmeister

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.
--------------------------------

How is it MS's fault that your browser is shit?
How about sending a message to the developers of your browser asking them to
support the site and stop trying to hold everyone else back because you want
to use a shite browser?

I never said it is a MS fault - this is our government fault for not
enforcing standards for browsers, wordprocessors or spreadsheets. Of
course MS profits from this situation, but the purpose of a
corporation is not to make good products - the purpose of a
corporation is to make profits for it board of directors and for other
shareholders. And this is the reason I asked you guy to write not to
Bill Gates - but to your representatives.

Zalek

[Ryan P.]

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
course MS profits from this situation, but the purpose of a
corporation is not to make good products - the purpose of a
corporation is to make profits for it board of directors and for other
shareholders. And this is the reason I asked you guy to write not to

So a private corporation shouldn't be allowed to develop a product
that is too successful? You are essentially asking the government to be
in control of R&D for a quickly evolving market (computer software).
The government does NOTHING quickly.

I take that back... they QUICKLY take money the see as vulnerable from
private citizens and businesses. (Let's all hope Hillary doesn't get
her way and confiscate energy company profits... imagine what THAT will
do to gas prices!)

[Sam Smith]

Post by Clockmeister
How is it MS's fault that your browser is shit?

:))))

---
Sam

[John Slade]

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.

It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.

John

[Wegie]

Post by John Slade
Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.

john, you need to learn what the word "monopoly" means. it doesn't mean
"one choice", it means "exclusive control".

"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a
commodity or service"

http://www.answers.com/monopoly&r=67

your understanding of basic vocabulary is appalling.

[John Slade]

Post by Wegie

Post by John Slade
Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.

john, you need to learn what the word "monopoly" means. it doesn't mean
"one choice", it means "exclusive control".
"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a
commodity or service"
http://www.answers.com/monopoly&r=67

Wegie, the dolt who said that Serial ATA is not a standard because
Apple didn't "ratify" it, is trying to tell someone about grasping basic
concepts. Look Wegie, this is what "monopoly" means.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=monopoly

Here is what "exclusive" means.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=exclusive

I like the part where it tells you it can mean "single" or "sole".
Microsoft never had singular and sole access to the Intel platform. Anyone
who is telling you differently is lying or they don't know the meaning of
the words I just defined.

John

[Peter Köhlmann]

Post by John Slade

Post by Wegie

Post by John Slade
Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.

john, you need to learn what the word "monopoly" means. it doesn't mean
"one choice", it means "exclusive control".
"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a
commodity or service"
http://www.answers.com/monopoly&r=67

Wegie, the dolt who said that Serial ATA is not a standard because
Apple didn't "ratify" it,

"Wegie" is the same dimwit who posts as "Oxford", better known as "OxRetard"
since there is no dumber poster on all of usenet
All in all, he shares a lot of traits with Snot. You could add
their "intelligence", and you still would come up with a single digit
value. And both are Mac users.

That fact alone explains their utter stupidity

OxRetard claims that Macs are "unhackable" despite the many proofs to the
contrary, and Snot thinks he is a "teacher"

[Z***@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:35:06 -0800, "John Slade"

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.
John

John,

Did you notice that I wrote "de-facto monopoly"? Here is explanation
from Wikipedia:
"De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice"
but not spelled out by law. It is commonly used in contrast to de jure
(which means "by law")".

De facto - it means that if I want to sure that my resume in format
.doc will be read correctly by my prospective employer, I have to
write it using MS Word (I was told this on Linux Expo). It means that
Intuit or Quick Books or other popular software are written for Win
only.
I have nothing against Bill Gates - he have legal right to lobby our
government to support outsourcing and not to enforce any non-MS
standards or procedures that will reduce his products price. It is
about our(?) representatives, not about Bill Gates.

Zalek

[John Slade]

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:35:06 -0800, "John Slade"

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.
John

John,
Did you notice that I wrote "de-facto monopoly"? Here is explanation

<spin snippage>

I know what you meant. You qualified "monopoly". Microsoft is not, nor
has it ever been a monopoly.

John

[Ronald J. Hall]

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:35:06 -0800, "John Slade"

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.
John

John,
Did you notice that I wrote "de-facto monopoly"? Here is explanation

<spin snippage>
I know what you meant. You qualified "monopoly". Microsoft is not, nor
has it ever been a monopoly.
John

I'm not sure why this is in comp.sys.atari.advocacy, but while MS may
or may not be a "pure" monopoly, it surely is monopolistic, as well as
being very antagonistic towards any competitor... Too many examples to
list here.

Isn't "embrace, extend, and extinguish" one of their main mottos? :(

[Maverick]

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:35:06 -0800, "John Slade"

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.
John

John,
Did you notice that I wrote "de-facto monopoly"? Here is explanation

<spin snippage>
I know what you meant. You qualified "monopoly". Microsoft is not, nor
has it ever been a monopoly.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Your an idiot.

[John Slade]

Post by Maverick

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:35:06 -0800, "John Slade"

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.
John

John,
Did you notice that I wrote "de-facto monopoly"? Here is explanation

<spin snippage>
I know what you meant. You qualified "monopoly". Microsoft is not,
nor has it ever been a monopoly.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Your an idiot.

I said this before, a judge or jury's opinion does not change the fact
the Microsoft isn't now nor has it ever been a monopoly.

John

[Steve Carroll]

Post by John Slade

Post by Maverick

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:35:06 -0800, "John Slade"

Post by John Slade

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives. If you'll send your
email too, it maybe convince the US Congress/Senate to sponser this
law, regardless of MS lobbying efforts.

Microsoft is not now, nor has it ever been a monopoly. At all times in
it's existence there have been other choices. No opinion from judges can
change that. The root of the word "monopoly" is "mono" which means one. It
does not mean two or three it means one and one only. That's why anyone with
a little sense knows that Microsoft is not a monopoly. Using words and
phrases to qualify they meaning of "monopoly" is the refuge of those who
competed with Microsoft and got handed their asses. Even the people who
cried about Microsoft giving away a browser probably use OS X, Unix and
Linux versions that come with free browsers.
It's really sad when people let their hatred of Bill Gates and
Microsoft take over reason.
John

John,
Did you notice that I wrote "de-facto monopoly"? Here is explanation

<spin snippage>
I know what you meant. You qualified "monopoly". Microsoft is not,
nor has it ever been a monopoly.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Your an idiot.

I said this before, a judge or jury's opinion does not change the fact
the Microsoft isn't now nor has it ever been a monopoly.

That's a 'Michael Glasser' argument if I've ever heard one... and it
doesn't change the fact that MS has operated with a power unseen prior
to their obtaining it.

[John C. Randolph]

Post by Z***@hotmail.com
This is the email I sent to my repesentatives.

Send it to citybank, and you might reach someone who actually cares.

-jcr