Re: I'm at a loss for words

[smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve Mentzer)]

In article <swhite-2510961748460001@pulm-mac2.bsd.uchicago.edu>, 
swhite@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu says...
>
>
>Which makes me wonder why you pirated -- just the stuff you didn't like,
>eh? That makes even less sense.
>


 I guess I am a packrat, or is that a crime against morality too?


>
>Ah, an arrogant, unapologetic thief.
>


Notice a pattern?  The "thief" argument is all you have. Oh, make that
an "Arrogant, unapologetic packrat thief". By the way, did I mention that
my dad can beat up your dad?  Stop the name calling and drop the morality
stick.


>
>
>Neither Microsoft's market strategy or the number of illict copies of
>Win95 are the question. The question is your behavior.
>


I was making a point, you implied that my piracy was responsible for the 
downfall of the Apple II. I was showing you an example of a company that
is not affected (and probably prospered) due to the piracy of its products.


>
>No, not psychopathic or thuggish.
>
>Just an arrogant, unapologetic thief.
>

Is name calling all you are good at? You sound like a 13 year old.


>
>It does make one wonder why I should consider anything you say.
>


For someone who refuses to accept any other point than his own, anything you
say should be considered "suspect". I dont think we should listen to a 
word you say. You are being arrogant by painting this issue black or 
white with paints of your own design.



>
>Trust a thief to condone the actions of other thieves. Contractors who
>bilk the government are thieves, which you of course understand.
>


Really, they are just taking advantage of a "market economy". The government
is willing to pay it, aren't they?  So, please explain this double standard
to me where apple was OK for screwing the public by charging $$$$ for
proprietary technology, but contractors who charge the government $$$$$
for labor and other things are crooks and thieves.  I detect a little hole
in your argument.  Sounds like you are a little hypocritical here.





>Apple didn't steal from anyone. They offered a product which many,
>including me, purchased. Frankly, I got good value for what I paid. That
>the price was higher than you would have liked is a reflection of a market
>economy.
>
>But then, perhaps you are angry because you couldn't steal an Apple II,
>you actually had to spend money.
>


Yes, I went out and bought a $2000.00 apple //e,  a $3500.00 apple //gs 
and then they discontinued the line a month after I bought the //gs. By the
way, I was 17 years old when I bought the //gs. That was a lot of money then.

Even though you are trying to paint me as a thief, it is pretty obvious
that I have spent a tremendous amount of money on the apple // line.


>> Yes, and if IBM would have won that battle, I *guarantee* that the PC would
>> have never become as popular as it is today. 
>
>
>So? The issue isn't popularity. If IBM owns a copyright or a patent, they
>have every right to enforce it (I know, I know, you don't understand this
>because it's a moral issue). IBM lost the legal battle because Phoenix
>proved that it engineered an acceptable substitute WITHOUT improper use of
>proprietary technology. That was legal.
>


Once again, I was trying to point out that the reason apple is in the 
toilet is due to the arrogant and unsupportive attitude they have taken
over the years. IBM lost that battle. The led to a great deal of investment
in the IBM PC market. IBM lost a stranglehold grip on the market and the
market grew. Apple never figured out that they could actually help 
themselves by loosening up their "grip" a little bit.

Apple Computer has been the kings of Proprietary technology and Overpricing
since day 1. This is what hurt them then, and this is what is going to kill 
them in the future.


>
>> There we go with the thief argument. I am beginning to see a pattern here. 
>> If you couldn't call me a thief, you wouldn't have an argument.
>
>
>Trust me, buddy boy, I can argue rings around you. I just have.
>


Hardly, you have resorted to name calling. And every argument that I poised
you managed to twist and distort and either call me another name or drag it
way off subject.

My point was simple. Piracy didn't kill the apple // line. Apple Computer
did. Take a look at recent performance stats from apple computer. They have
been having a hard time for years.

And then I made the point that *every* home computer company that succeeded
at maintaining "proprietary" technology is no longer around. Atari, Commodore
Apple, Texas Instruments and all the others are dead. Their home computers 
are sitting in closets taking up space or collecting dust in the rafters
of the garage.

So next time you try to make a point and "run rings" around me, try not to 
resort to the childish name calling that you seem to be great at.

Without your "moral" foothold, your arguments are nonexistent.

smentzer@pacbell.net