Microsoft Hatred FAQ berkeleyunix 5150
No matter how many times I quote to you where you specifically do exactly this, you insist you aren't. Yes, you are. You equate metaphorical force with actual physical force...
Except you treat *every* mention of any crime other than abuse of monopoly power as a crime that involves the use of force - whether it does or not. In the example I quoted, you did it with "theft" - without reference to how the theft happened. There are lots of forms of theft that don't involve use of force - abuse of monopoly power is one of them, but so is embezzlement. Yet you accused me of equating arguments with guns.
If it that vital, then you need to make the distinction yourself, and quit treating *any* crime not committed by MS as if it involved the use of force.
Oh, we know you reject it. You never miss an opportunity to say so - even if it's not at all relevant.
As predicted, you denied the truth of what I said, then provided an excuse for a behavior that you don't follow. So we're still waiting for an explanation for your actual behavior other than your being a shill for MS.
Your sole evidence for this claim is that I once equated "theft" with force. Yes, you are correct that it's possible to steal something without...
Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth to them, I can starve you to rest. I'd say I've used force against you - an economic force. This is the kind of force that MS wields illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.
-- Independent WWW-Perforce-FreeBSD-Unix consultant, email for more information.
Linux groups from Newsgroups