NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/11800

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 3.5 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!ecn.purdue.edu!helz
From: [e-mail] (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:05:42 GMT
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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".

Indeed, and exactly right on the money.

|>I'm not arguing from that premise;

But yes you are!!  The Cloners voluntarily consent to sign an agreement with
Microsoft and you call it Coercion!  Its the exact opposite.

|> I'm arguing that the agreements that major cloners sign with MS are made
|> under economic duress.

Offering someone a good deal and a better deal is not putting them under
"economic duress" to accept the better deal.  Its like me choosing to do my
shopping at IGA because they're cheaper than Kroger and you saying that
IGA is "coercing" Kroger out of business.

|> >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.

Just for fun lets throw in here the definition of constrain:

con.strain 1: COMPEL 2: to force or produce in an unnatural or strained manner
3: to secure by or as if by bond : CONFINE 4: to bring into narrow compass; also
to clasp tightly 5: to hold back by force; - con.strained.ly av

Cross references:
  1. force

|> 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.


???? All of your definitions seem to indicate that either the threat or the
actual presence of physical violence must be present in order for something
to be labeled coercion.

Now I understand that you can use almost any word metaphorically--for instance,
I can screw you without actually, er, screwing you.  Metaphors are usually
OK, but when they start confusing the issue they should be abandoned.