home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!manta!discar
- From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
- Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
- Message-ID: <1993Jan6.204517.22986@nosc.mil>
- Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
- References: <8326@lib.tmc.edu> <1993Jan5.215257.11908@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <8358@lib.tmc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:45:17 GMT
- Lines: 83
-
- In article <8358@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
- >In article <1993Jan5.215257.11908@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
- >>You're method of argument is interesting--all you do is shout that Microsoft
- >>is guilty of "forcing" and "coercing", as if it would be true if you say it
- >>loud and often enough. George Orwell was very familier with this technique,
- >>ever read 1984? "Slavery is Freedom, Hate is Love, Peace is War." Its used
- >>by dictators of every color as a tool for thought controll.
- >
- >The difference here is that Orwell's technique involves redefining words to
- >the direct opposite of their accepted meanings; in this discussion, the
- >analogous technique would be something like "Consent is Coercion". I'm not
- >arguing from that premise; I'm arguing that the agreements that major cloners
- >sign with MS are made under economic duress.
-
- But whether or not they are "force" or "coersion" is entirely subjective.
- One could arguable debate that EVERY choice that people make is because of
- force or coersion (i.e., "I bought a house because apartments are too
- expensive" or "I bought a 4Runner because Toyota makes safer trucks than
- Ford...").
-
-
- I don't deny that the agreement in question is advantageous to the
- supplier, Microsoft... but what's to stop IBM from drafting their own
- agreement? If you feel the Microsoft "forces" the agreement on its
- customers, would you say that products are "forced" unto us through
- TV commercials--and that the action should be stopped (after all, I watch
- Fox because of I want to watch STNG... not automobile commercials!).
-
- >
- >>Lets go to the arbiter of language and see what it says about "force" and
- >>"coerce". I'll tell you what mine dictionary has to say about them--and
- >>don't believe me just because I said it--you all have dictionaries too so
- >>look it up for yourself:
- >
- >Oh, goody. A dictionary flame. Here's what my dictionary (The American
- >Heritage Dictionary, New College edition - the only one handy at the moment)
- >has to say about force and coercion:
- >
- >force: (among the physics-related definitions) 5. A capacity for affecting the
- >mind or behavior.
- >coercion: The art or practice of coercing. (OK, so:)
- >coerce: To force to act or think in a given manner; to compel by pressure or
- >threat.
- >pressure: 4. A constraining influence upon the mind or will.
- >threat: an expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or
- >punishment on a person or thing.
-
- And Jay, you are absolutely right. Violence does not prove whether or not
- "force" or "coercion" is in effect. However, those words ARE subjective.
- I, being a vendor, do not feel that Microsoft tried to "force" me into an
- agreement. I've seen it, I thought about it, and I turned it down--and no
- army of Microsoft Lawyers have come pounding at my door either.
-
- I CHOSE not to sign up for an MLP... just as those who did CHOSE to sign
- for one. And I would be very put out to think that a government
- agency can go around and remove CHOICES that I and my company can make.
- Sure, if Microsoft DID "force" me to sign (against my will) I would have
- welcomed external intervention--but they haven't, and I daresay they WON'T...
- and my company is still highly profitable without MS's MLP... but it was
- my CHOICE.
-
- >
- >>In order for an action to properly be called "coercion" there MUST be the
- >>threat of or actional violence, of the which and by the way so there may be
- >>no confusion on this point here is the definition of violence:
- >
- >Nope. Coercion can be nonviolent, but harmful.
- >
-
- True. But is MS's (not the "market") intend harm?
-
- >>If you misuse a word when you talk, that indicates that you arn't the one who
- >>is talking--you are using the word how you've been told it should work.
- >
- >I'm not misusing the words, though.
- >
- >>The moral of the story is this: Think for yourself in crystal-clear words.
- >
- >I am. Are you?
- >--
- >Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
-
-
-