On Aug 8, 10:18*am, Jack Stein wrote:

Jackhttp://jbstein.com


Nice collection of woodworking related links. Thanks for that.

r---- who thinks hitting the start button to shut down the puter is
kinda cute.

Jack Stein wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:

IMHO the single best thing that Gates & Co. did was make everyone
speak the same language.

No, that's not what he did. He did make most people, particularly
the
most vulnerable people use the worlds worst OS to run their programs
on (horrible memory protection) and store their files on (horrible
file systems) His operating shell (windows) is a horrible interface
that is hard to work with, hard to analyze, and simply sucks.

Anyone who remembers trying to pass business files back and forth
before de facto standardization by msft doesn't miss those days
even
a little bit.

Please email me if you disagree and I will get back to you with an
attachment - written in WordStar 1.

I disagree completely. The only compatible files amongst
applications
are text files. If you think MS Word files are compatible, or Excel
files are compatible with other applications you would be wrong. If
you think things are great because EVERYONE is pretty much stuck
using Word, then you probably think the world would have been better
off if Hitler won the war and we were are forced to drive
Volkswagens.

A good example of compatibility is what this very thread is about.
Usenet, email, HTML is all open source where anyone can write an
application such as Thunderbird, Firefox, OE, IE. When they write
the
apps, they are expected to meet the protocols so everything works.
Gates has always SCREWED up his code to NOT conform to the standards
hoping to force everyone to use his crap, just like everyone is
forced
to use his OS's.

Yes, Gates has gone a long way to make EVERYTHING incompatible and
forcing everyone to speak HIS language. This is BAD in itself, but
whats even more grating is his language sucks and barely works.

I do hope you realize how _boring_ this crap gets the 47,000th time
you've heard it.



--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy

Funny how you have no compunctions about criticising Gates and his
contribution to the computer world, yet your headers show that you feel
quite comfortable using Windows software. Can you spell hyocrite? Have you
ever *heard* the word before?

there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or possibly
the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.

MS-DOS didn't exist 30 years in 1978 and the first independent version of
windows was about 1985. So that blows your 30 year time frame out of the
water. Quite obviously, you believe most of what you hear and direct your
life on hearsay and innuendo without taking one moment to back up or confirm
anything that you've heard. Just as obviously, you haven't even seen Vista
in operation much less actually used it.

Very simply, you're just another flake running with the mob. Well, chicken
little, I'm here to tell you that the sky is indeed falling and that you
should take immediate shelter because you're about to get rained on big
time.

Jack Stein wrote:
What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy
competition where the best products are used, the consumer has been
stuck in using the worlds worst operating system, and have been stuck
there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or
possibly the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.


My first XT(Amstrad) computer came with Digital Research's ver. of DOS and
GEM (a early graphical interface)....it became a far more useful machine
with Microsoft's DOS and WORKS ....easily doing payroll, billing and
contracts for my business......Gates held no gun to my or anyone's
head....the market place clearly chose his products. His competitors for
many years were all well larger, better placed and better
funded.....including IBM (world largest computer company then).......To
think his then little company conquered all by nefarious means is simple
ignorance. Incidentally his insistence to own and sell DOS and license it to
IBM instead of selling it to IBM is why we have and had a very competitive
PC business. Rod

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy
competition where the best products are used, the consumer has been
stuck in using the worlds worst operating system, and have been stuck
there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or
possibly the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.


My first XT(Amstrad) computer came with Digital Research's ver. of DOS and
GEM (a early graphical interface)....it became a far more useful machine
with Microsoft's DOS and WORKS ....easily doing payroll, billing and
contracts for my business......Gates held no gun to my or anyone's
head....the market place clearly chose his products. His competitors for
many years were all well larger, better placed and better
funded.....including IBM (world largest computer company then).......To
think his then little company conquered all by nefarious means is simple
ignorance. Incidentally his insistence to own and sell DOS and license it to
IBM instead of selling it to IBM is why we have and had a very competitive
PC business. Rod



Rod;

It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with their
computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create the OS
for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell the OS to
IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The rest as they
say is history.


Dave N

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with their
computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create the OS
for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell the OS to
IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The rest as they say
is history.
Dave N


You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates
insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM). IBM as
well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel owning the
chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I think) cracking
the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and Microsoft had separate
support /development teams (Microsoft's much smaller, leaner and more
effective). PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by
Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the teams. IBM
fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before its ultimate demise.
Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the
stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with
their
computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create
the
OS for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell
the OS to IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The
rest as they say is history.
Dave N


You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates
insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM).

Either way, if IBM had ended up with the code the only real long term
difference in the computer market would be that everybody hated Gary
Kildall instead of Bill Gates, because it was intended to be a CP/M
machine from the outset and the only reason it wasn't was that Digital
Research (which, for those who think I'm talking about the outfit that
made VAXen, was a different company from Digital Equipment) didn't get
their OS on the machine as the default was that somehow they managed
to tick off IBM enough for IBM to seek a second source (there are many
stories concerning what specific action set them off).

IBM as well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel
owning the chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I
think) cracking the hardware they could not.

There wasn't any hardware in an IBM PC that needed "cracking". What
Compaq did was write a clone of the ROM-BIOS program that did not
infringe IBM's copyright.

If IBM had really wanted to keep the PC proprietary they would have
used their own OS and processor (they had a single-chip 370 running in
the laboratory, and they had their own 32-bit multiuser multitasking
virtual-memory protected mode operating system in commercial
production long before the first IBM PC shipped) instead of farming it
out to some hole in the wall.

They saw what was happening in the microcomputer market and the PC was
an attempt to cash in on it on the cheap--the prototype PC was pretty
much built from the parts bin for the System 25, which had been a big
flop.

For DOS both IBM and
Microsoft had separate support /development teams (Microsoft's much
smaller, leaner and more effective). PC DOS was supported by IBM and
MSDOS was supported by Microsoft.

Which was more effective is debatable. Once they split the code base,
PC DOS was generally tighter code.

Various DOS version releases flip
flopped between the teams. IBM fully expected OS/2 to render DOS
obsolete long before its ultimate demise. Microsoft's Window
development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the stage for
a
WIN95 knockout.......Rod

Well, actually it was NT that set the stage for the WIN95
knockout--the only reason Windows 95 ever existed was to induce
developers to start writing code for WIN32.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Upscale wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
What I'm saying is that with Bill Gates illegally monopolizing the PC
operating system scene for the past 30 years, instead of healthy

Funny how you have no compunctions about criticising Gates and his
contribution to the computer world, yet your headers show that you feel
quite comfortable using Windows software.

I'm not even slightly "comfortable" using windows software, it sucks. I
can use it, I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
monopoly of the operating system market.

Can you spell hyocrite? Have you
ever *heard* the word before?

Can you spell monopoly, have you ever heard the word before?

there for around 30 years. Vista seems to be no different, or possibly
the worse of the bunch from what I've been hearing.

MS-DOS didn't exist 30 years in 1978 and the first independent version of
windows was about 1985. So that blows your 30 year time frame out of the
water.

Your are dummer than dirt.

Quite obviously, you believe most of what you hear and direct your
life on hearsay and innuendo without taking one moment to back up or confirm
anything that you've heard.

Like a fool, you know zip and talk out of your ass. I've been running
MS crap since DOS 2.1 and I know it sucks first hand. I know it sucks
because I use it and have been intimately familiar with Windows, Unix,
and yes, OS2.

Just as obviously, you haven't even seen Vista
in operation much less actually used it.

The reason it's obvious is I just said it?

Very simply, you're just another flake running with the mob.

Well, the "mob" is running Gate's Garbage. Most of them have no choice,
never had a choice, and probably never will have a choice.

Well, chicken little, I'm here to tell you that the sky is indeed falling and that you
should take immediate shelter because you're about to get rained on big
time.

Well lemming, the sky already fell, you already have been rained on, and
you're too dumb to know it. Sorry about that.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:

IMHO the single best thing that Gates & Co. did was make everyone
speak the same language.
No, that's not what he did. He did make most people, particularly
the
most vulnerable people use the worlds worst OS to run their programs
on (horrible memory protection) and store their files on (horrible
file systems) His operating shell (windows) is a horrible interface
that is hard to work with, hard to analyze, and simply sucks.

Anyone who remembers trying to pass business files back and forth
before de facto standardization by msft doesn't miss those days
even
a little bit.
Please email me if you disagree and I will get back to you with an
attachment - written in WordStar 1.
I disagree completely. The only compatible files amongst
applications
are text files. If you think MS Word files are compatible, or Excel
files are compatible with other applications you would be wrong. If
you think things are great because EVERYONE is pretty much stuck
using Word, then you probably think the world would have been better
off if Hitler won the war and we were are forced to drive
Volkswagens.

A good example of compatibility is what this very thread is about.
Usenet, email, HTML is all open source where anyone can write an
application such as Thunderbird, Firefox, OE, IE. When they write
the
apps, they are expected to meet the protocols so everything works.
Gates has always SCREWED up his code to NOT conform to the standards
hoping to force everyone to use his crap, just like everyone is
forced
to use his OS's.

Yes, Gates has gone a long way to make EVERYTHING incompatible and
forcing everyone to speak HIS language. This is BAD in itself, but
whats even more grating is his language sucks and barely works.

I do hope you realize how _boring_ this crap gets the 47,000th time
you've heard it.

I do hope you realize that you just re-posted my entire message just to
say it is boring...

Don't you have a clue how to edit a message so it isn't full of
repeating boredom?

How's that?
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

My first XT(Amstrad) computer came with Digital Research's ver. of DOS and
GEM (a early graphical interface)....it became a far more useful machine
with Microsoft's DOS and WORKS ....easily doing payroll, billing and
contracts for my business......Gates held no gun to my or anyone's
head....the market place clearly chose his products.

Nope, IBM chose his product. Actually, he didn't even have a product
when IBM chose his "product".

His competitors for
many years were all well larger, better placed and better
funded.....including IBM (world largest computer company then).......

IBM was not his competitor, IBM was his savior.

To
think his then little company conquered all by nefarious means is simple
ignorance.

Unless you are aware that his millionaire parents, particularly his mom,
was tight with the chairman of IBM when they made the unbelievable
decision to give him the contract for an operating system he didn't even
have until after they gave him the contract.

Incidentally his insistence to own and sell DOS and license it to
IBM instead of selling it to IBM is why we have and had a very competitive
PC business. Rod

Well, we are talking Operating Systems not PC business.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

David G. Nagel wrote:

It should also be pointed out that IBM, when they came up with their
computer, sought out Bill and his buddy and asked them to create the OS
for their radical new computer. Bill originally wanted to sell the OS to
IBM but IBM didn't want to have to support the code. The rest as they
say is history.

IBM sought out Gates, who at the time did not have an OS at all. Why
would they do this I wonder? They could have gone straight to Patterson
who developed the OS instead of Gates, who had to go Patterson to buy it
off of him. Gates had no clue how it even worked...

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the code.........Gates
insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM). IBM as
well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel owning the
chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq I think) cracking
the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and Microsoft had separate
support /development teams (Microsoft's much smaller, leaner and more
effective).

It's a cartel. Intel owns the chips, MS owns the OS, and IBM owns the
hardware and service end. Every time everyone has enough hardware and
chip power to run his screwed up OS, MS comes out with a bigger, more
bloated, slower system. He provides no backwards support and INTEL
sells more chips, IBM gets more royalties and sells more service as
nothing Gates has done has ever worked quite right. It's the same old
**** over and over. Probably why J. Clark is tired of hearing it.

PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by
Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the teams. IBM
fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before its ultimate demise.
Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a sleeper with ver 3 setting the
stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod

Win95 was no knockout. It damn near killed Windows. IBM never wanted
anything to do with owning the OS that dominated everyones computers so
when OS2 was about to kill Windows dead as a doornail, IBM pulled the
plug when OS2 was reaching critical mass (million copies a month being
sold.)

OS2 was the only version of windows that actually worked. It was bullet
proof with a windows interface. Not as strong as UNIX but it had the
file system and memory protection required for an OS to work without
constant problems. IBM killed it because it didn't fit in with the
windows garbage plan that has kept the cartel very rich and famous.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:

I hope you realize how boring all this is?

Either way, if IBM had ended up with the code the only real long term
difference in the computer market would be that everybody hated Gary
Kildall instead of Bill Gates, because it was intended to be a CP/M
machine from the outset and the only reason it wasn't was that Digital
Research (which, for those who think I'm talking about the outfit that
made VAXen, was a different company from Digital Equipment) didn't get
their OS on the machine as the default was that somehow they managed
to tick off IBM enough for IBM to seek a second source (there are many
stories concerning what specific action set them off).

Yeah, there are a lot of stories because IBM will never tell the truth.

Here are the facts:

IBM had already been busted for running a monopoly and didn't want it to
happen again.

IBM was in competition with Digital Research

IBM's chairman was tight with Gates mother

Gates, a pimply faced millionaires son had no operating system to sell,
but apparently had very good connections.

The rest is history, you can fill in the blanks as to why the world
suffers the worlds worst OS.

There wasn't any hardware in an IBM PC that needed "cracking". What
Compaq did was write a clone of the ROM-BIOS program that did not
infringe IBM's copyright.

That was probably a mistake on IBM's part. No matter, they have patents
on just about everything computer related.

If IBM had really wanted to keep the PC proprietary they would have
used their own OS and processor (they had a single-chip 370 running in
the laboratory, and they had their own 32-bit multiuser multitasking
virtual-memory protected mode operating system in commercial
production long before the first IBM PC shipped) instead of farming it
out to some hole in the wall.

This is exactly right. I think they did it for fear of more charges of
monopoly which can be scary to a corporation. It's worked out well for
all, except the consumer, who generally gets screwed in these
situations, but imo, this is classic how people get ****ed from a
monopoly situation.

BTW, when MicroSoft couldn't figure out how to get windows to work after
years of fooling around, IBM wrote OS/2 in less than a year, and it not
only worked, it ran DOS and Windows and OS/2 operating systems and
applications seamlessly and concurrently.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

You've got it backwards.....IBM wanted to buy the
code.........Gates
insisted on the license and the ability to sell to third party PC
manufacturers (he declined a multi-million dollar offer from IBM).
IBM as well tried to keep the PC market propriety but between Intel
owning the chip, Microsoft owning the OS and third parties (Compaq
I
think) cracking the hardware they could not. For DOS both IBM and
Microsoft had separate support /development teams (Microsoft's much
smaller, leaner and more effective).

It's a cartel. Intel owns the chips, MS owns the OS, and IBM owns
the
hardware and service end. Every time everyone has enough hardware
and
chip power to run his screwed up OS, MS comes out with a bigger,
more
bloated, slower system. He provides no backwards support and INTEL
sells more chips, IBM gets more royalties and sells more service as
nothing Gates has done has ever worked quite right. It's the same
old
**** over and over. Probably why J. Clark is tired of hearing it.

PC DOS was supported by IBM and MSDOS was supported by
Microsoft. Various DOS version releases flip flopped between the
teams. IBM fully expected OS/2 to render DOS obsolete long before
its ultimate demise. Microsoft's Window development was a bit of a
sleeper with ver 3 setting the stage for a WIN95 knockout.......Rod

Win95 was no knockout. It damn near killed Windows. IBM never
wanted
anything to do with owning the OS that dominated everyones computers
so when OS2 was about to kill Windows dead as a doornail, IBM pulled
the plug when OS2 was reaching critical mass (million copies a month
being sold.)

OS2 was the only version of windows that actually worked. It was
bullet proof with a windows interface. Not as strong as UNIX but it
had the file system and memory protection required for an OS to work
without constant problems. IBM killed it because it didn't fit in
with the windows garbage plan that has kept the cartel very rich and
famous.

Boring. One of these days one of you OS advocates will actually get a
fact right and I'll die of shock.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Boring. One of these days one of you OS advocates will actually get a
fact right and I'll die of shock.

Highly unlikely in this case. His delusional paranoia about Microsoft and
Bill Gates has severely warped any possible semblance of reality.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
monopoly of the operating system market.

Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Jack Stein wrote:

How's that?

plonk

How's that?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jack Stein wrote:

Your are dummer than dirt.

Heh - I think I hafta go build a framing clamp... :-D

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Tom Veatch writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
monopoly of the operating system market.

Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?


The US government has already won an anti-trust suit against
Microsoft for this. The European Union is currently proceeding
with an anti-trust action against microsoft.

The findings of fact, that Microsoft is a monopoly and abused
its monopoly position have been upheld.

So yes, the proper authorities have been informed and are
working the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

scott

On Aug 12, 6:06*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
How's that?

plonk

How's that?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I heard a plonk... I wonder who is nearby??

Tom Veatch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
monopoly of the operating system market.

Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?

They were notified, the DOJ took MS to court, they were found guilty,
the judge told the DOJ they were not asking enough and to re-submit with
more appropriate remedy, and the DOJ appealed their victory.

How much do you think it cost Gates to get the DOJ to appeal their victory?

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:

plonk

How's that?

Oh, you brute!

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Scott Lurndal wrote:

The US government has already won an anti-trust suit against
Microsoft for this. The European Union is currently proceeding
with an anti-trust action against microsoft.

The findings of fact, that Microsoft is a monopoly and abused
its monopoly position have been upheld.

So yes, the proper authorities have been informed and are
working the problem.

They had the problem about solved when the administrative law judge
advised the DOJ (under Clinton) that MicroSofts monopoly was far worse
than the retributions sought by the DOJ. The DOJ then appealed their
victory, saying the judge had no right to do this. It is the only time
I have heard someone appealing a law suit after getting MORE than they
asked for, appealing the decision and asking for less than they were
awarded. Something this lame had to cost Gates a bundle. He of course
has a bundle that he has stolen via his illegal monopoly.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Tom Veatch writes:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:07:43 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

I'm basically forced to use it because of his illegal
monopoly of the operating system market.

Have you notified the proper authorities about this illegal monopoly?

They were already convicted, and reached a settlement with the DoJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:41 -0400, Maxwell Lol
wrote:

They were already convicted, and reached a settlement with the DoJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft


"Convicted"? That was a civil action you cited.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:58:41 -0400, Maxwell Lol
wrote:
They were already convicted, and reached a settlement with the DoJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

"Convicted"? That was a civil action you cited.

I didn't read his cite, but "convicted means proven guilty. Microsoft
was already proven guilty of illegal monopoly in a court of law.
I reckon it was the Sherman anti-trust laws he has been breaking for
years now, but no matter, we have all seen the results of what can
happen when a ruthless twit owns a monopoly and uses it to force crapola
on the general public.

con·vict Audio Help (k?n-vi(kt') Pronunciation Key
v. con·vict·ed, con·vict·ing, con·victs
v. tr.
1. Law: To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime,
especially by the verdict of a court:

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Upscale wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Boring. One of these days one of you OS advocates will actually get a
fact right and I'll die of shock.

Highly unlikely in this case. His delusional paranoia about Microsoft and
Bill Gates has severely warped any possible semblance of reality.

Well then, your moronic complacency about Microsofts illegal monopoly
and how it has been mostly detrimental to the computing community at
large is underwhelming and nothing more than a testament to herd mentality.

Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote

Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.

As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from time to
time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the only way
I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.

Plonk

Lee
A Dumbass Woodworker

On Aug 13, 1:44*pm, "Lee Michaels" wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote

Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.

As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from time to
time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the only way
I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.

Plonk

Lee
A Dumbass Woodworker

Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
unlikely.
And I don't see you as dumb ass.

r

"Robatoy" wrote
On Aug 13, 1:44 pm, "Lee Michaels" wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote

Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.

As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from time
to
time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the only
way
I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.

Plonk

Lee
A Dumbass Woodworker

Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
unlikely.
And I don't see you as dumb ass.

------------------------------

Uhhh..., Robatoy...., adjust your sarcasm meter.

On Aug 13, 7:45*pm, "Lee Michaels" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote
On Aug 13, 1:44 pm, "Lee Michaels" wrote:



"Jack Stein" wrote

Moreover, your ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your position,
even amongst us dumb ass woodworkers.

As a dumbass woodworker, who enjoys a good off topic discussion from time
to
time, finds your scathing, arrogant manner totally uncomfortable.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't know any better you know, the only
way
I can escape your relentless vitriol, is to killfile you.

As a dumbass woodworker, I just don't see any alternative.

Plonk

Lee
A Dumbass Woodworker

Ohhh, I don't know, Lee. There are dumb ass woodworkers and guys like
you and I and many others who aren't dumb ass woodworkers. Jack Stein
put himself in the dumb-ass category, I don't think he put anybody
else in there with him. He could be there all by himself...but that's
unlikely.
And I don't see you as dumb ass.

------------------------------

Uhhh..., *Robatoy...., *adjust your sarcasm meter.

***BUZZER*** Wrong! I meant what I said.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:17:40 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

I didn't read his cite, but "convicted means proven guilty.

You should.

Guilt or innocence is not a factor in civil proceedings, so Microsoft
could not have been "convicted" or "proven guilty" in the cited
action. True, the original trial court ruled for the DOJ, the
plaintiff. However, the findings of the trial court were overturned on
appeal and remanded for retrial. The suit was then settled prior to
trial. So essentially, the contention that Microsoft has been found
"guilty" of anything in a court of law is not supported by the cite.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA