begin Roy Culley rgc@nodomain.none, wrote in message
viq73-3eo.ln1@dog.did.it:
Why should it have to?

How convenient? Don't state exactly what should be documented, then find
that whatever is supplied as inadequate. [Everybody want to see your demise,
please provide a blank cheque]

Such moves, coercions, and exhaustion by the EU, will be found illegal acts
of revenue raising and attempts of dispossessing an owner of it right to
peaceful and quiet enjoyment of it property. The EU will be discredited as
thieves in pursuit of a cabal.

Nothing more than machination of the envious.

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:32:41 -1100, FUD wrote:

Because the court said so.

Your premise is flawed.

In your pro-micro$oft opinion.

--
Rick

begin virus.txt.scr FUD wrote:

Idiot
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?

Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

On Thursday 22 December 2005 13:32 FUD wrote:

I don't think so.
In fact, it looks as though the E.U. is actually doing what the U.S. courts
should have done, and would have done were it not for the fact that the
U.S. is now pretty-well controlled by the large corporations...

In any event, the way things are going means that there can be one of only
three possible outcomes:-

1. Microsoft can comply with the law

2. Microsoft can go bust.

3. Microsoft can cease to vend its goods in the E.U.

Microsoft is quite free to make its choice.

__/ [Rick] on Thursday 22 December 2005 14:36 \__


....and because practices adopted by Microsoft are intended to cripple the
rival rather than offer added value.



What premise? He's pulling this out of his bottom.



Read the article again. The EU is trying to run servers that are better and
enable them to communicate with those pretentious machines that refuse to
say a word. It sounds like close-source vanity or discrimination to me.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Have you compiled your kernel today?"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:05pm up 11 days 23:16, 7 users, load average: 0.64, 0.50, 0.46
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

"B Gruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4101b2F1cc3skU1@individual.net...
chance that the EU will have to get in line. You may find the USA
opposing the action, too. In a stand up fight, who do you think would
win?

It is interesting to see that the EU doesn't consider the competing
systems to have any merit on their own, though. How do you reconcile
that? No one can add any value unless they work with Windows, is the
theory, so Windows has to turn loose of any an all information and it
has to be explained so that the other can comprehend it. A tall order
since the competitors have demonstrated an adversity to learning
anything new! LOL!!!

B Gruff wrote:
Opt for '3' and wait for the uproar of the people.

Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

begin Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlmann@t-online.de, wrote in message
oeh6c$vu$03$1@news.t-online.com:
You put your point across in such a way, it's difficult to know if you are
slighting yourself or are just ham-fisted in what you try to convey in your
post creation.

Are you afraid of those things you cannot handle, Peter? You also seem
afraid of my posts, and hence you alter the FU's.

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:08:25 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
<...>
At 2.4 million a day?
Heck, this could just be the cost of doing business for MS.



-Serge

begin virus.txt.scr FUD wrote:


I don't /alter/ the FU, I add it. Wouldn't you agree that your idiocy is
very appropriate at "24hoursupport.helpdesk" and only there?
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

begin Rick none@nomail.com, wrote in message
an.2005.12.22.14.36.14.590658@nomail.com:
Not at all, you just chose to read it in the wrong way. That is more than
likely why you are blindsided.

Let me spell it out for you. EU don't declare what should or should not be
in the documentation, then they are able to declare anything inadequate. Get
it now?

I'm neutrally objective, aren't you? That is what I see. What do you want to
see?

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.

begin B Gruff bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk, wrote in message
101b2F1cc3skU1@individual.net:
Ah yes, you're talking the mechanics of fair trade. I see your point most
clearly.

--
What makes a person doubt you is the horror at the thought they may be
wrong.

In article <slpanrn.2005.12.07.01.12.22.976502@ratshit.com> , FUD
<11111111@hx00000000.us.com> wrote:

develop for the Windows platform; it's almost the only way to make sure
Microsoft creates opportunities for other businesses.
If that doesn's sound fair, think of some other way that people who
don't make the operating system can keep making and offering products.

complaint and orders were quite specific -- as the charges would be.

Bizarre -- most people see it exactly the opposite way -- where
Microsoft is the powerful thief acting against everyone else's
interests.
"Peacful and quiet enjoyment of its property" sounds like you read that
out of a trespassing clause. Microsoft is NOT attempting to engage in
peaceful and quiet enjoyment of any property. They are trying to sell
it as the controlling package for a huge segment of the computer
industry, and since that industry involves hundreds of players, there
are many many products and interests involved.

That's just stupid. If a guy robs a bank, do you assume police go after
him because they are just envious he got to the money first?
Microsoft is nothing to be envious of. But from many perspectives,
Microsoft is something to fight in order to help others.

In article <dohi7m.184.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH>, FUD
<11111111@hx00000000.us.com> wrote:

But why do you believe the EU didn't declare what Microsoft needed to
provide?

In article <4101b2F1cc3skU1@individual.net>, B Gruff
<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Well, of course they'll try to barter down the conditions of
compliance, and then do whatever they need to do to get temporary
approval. Unfortunately, in the past that has meant temporary
compliance and then continued (and worse) violations again.

I find it bizarre that a company with it's strength of position
believes it has to fight these kinds of fundamental battles. It's not
like they risk anything. Microsoft hasn't got it's position today
because if keeps it's product development really secret. And their own
successes often come from partnering up with developers that offer new
technologies -- trying to slow the development of those technologies
isn't a good strategy from any angle.

"serge" <rancourNOOOSPAAAM@sprint.ca> wrote in message
newsan.2005.12.22.21.18.08.480371@sprint.ca...
I used to work for this company a multi billon dollar manufacturing company
with plants through out the US, Europe and the world. The stuff being talked
here about 2.4 a day on a fine is absolute chick fee as a company like that
and I was told that fines that a company may have enforced which nine times
out ten is reduced is cost to operate and they keep on doing what they are
doing pollution or what ever it may be.

I am sure MS is looking at in that light and is cost to operate.

Duane