In article ,
says...
In article . net, Java
Man wrote:

But you're suggesting that Google's only advantage is a head start

Where did I suggest that Google's ONLY advantage was anything? That's
bullpuckey.

Sorry. Perhaps I was taking you too literally when you posted:

---------------------
"All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear
before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had
a couple of days ago."
---------------------

Do you consider the subpoena and the loss of share value to be among
Google's advantages? If not, ALL that's left -- according to you -- is
a head start.

Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
advantage that they want to keep secret?

Yes. Or, uh... No.

A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google
wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.

If you don't know what Google wants to keep secret, why did you say:

------------------------
"Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow."
-------------------------


Google aggregates publicly available information.

The information is public.

And available.

Go aggregate it. Oops! Google has a head start! But they may not have
legally protectable IP!

So your point is... That they have an advantage because of their head
start?

Do I have to remind you that you posted that, not me?

So let's recap.

- You originally said all Google has is a head start, but you followed
up denying you had said it.

- You also said Google isn't doing anything proprietary, but later
admitted you didn't know what Google may be keeping secret.

- Finally, after you said that all Google has is a head start, you
attributed the idea to me.

What I want to know is why you did these things in a simple usenet
discussion. Are you dishonest or just stupid?

Rick