From: jdailey@dadd.ti.com (Jim Dailey,JDLY,)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Reply-To: jdailey@dadd.ti.com
Organization: Design Automaton Div., Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:15:09 GMT

gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>Here are some quotes of IBM employees disparaging Microsoft and microsoft
>products:
>
>  This is where OS/2 2.0 wins big over Windows. There's a genuine operating
>  system controlling the machine, not a souped up program loader and 
>--------------------------------------- ^^^^^^^^
>  filesystem (eg DOS)
>
>This IBM employee disparages DOS by calling it a "souped up program loader".

Somehow I doubt that most DOS users would call this disparaging--exaggerated
maybe (because of the souped up part :-))--but not disparaging.  Besides, I
think he was referring to Windows as the souped up program loader and DOS as
the filesystem.

> [Lengthly post from margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) deleted]
>
>This posting contains a series of disparagements and snide remarks.
>He ridicules NT shipping dates, and ridicules Windows programs.  He
>accuses MS of flipflopping.

Sorry, Gordon.  I think you are really stretching it here.  Some of the
parts of his post you are referring to are followed by smileys, for
God's sake!  BTW, what is the NT 1.0 (or 3.1 or whatever it will be
called) shipping date (as a Microsoft spokesman, please)?  Inquiring
minds ...

>
>  > What are all the 286 owners going to run?  :-)
>    
>  I've been running OS/2 1.x for years.  Why would I want to downgrade
>=============================================================^^^^^^^^^
>  to Windows?  :-)

Again, note the smiley.  Okay, so the smiley doesn't mask the TRUTH of
his statement--so what?  He simply said that OS/2 1.x is better than
Windows.  This does not disparage MS or Windows, does it?

>  >What's Gordon's problem, why does'nt he just go back to the MessySoft
>  >groups.
>    
>  Well, it's nice to hear the other side of the story.  Unfortunately, more of-
>  ten than not, it's unmitigated bull.
>
>this IBM employee accuses me of "raving", and then asserts that
>my postings are often "unmitigated bull".    Perhaps the readership
>will repost any of my postings in which I directly and personally
>slandered IBM employees.

Well, I have to say that this reply is being written because *I* thought
your post on the subject was fairly "raving" and "full of bull".

>My file of such stuff goes on and on, but this is enough.

I disagree--this is not enough--it's not anything.

>To make things perfectly clear, I don't give a hoot about such "ravings"
>and "unmittigated bull", myself.  However, two different IBM lawyers sent
>me threatening letters trying to force me off of the net.  This was in
>response to my posting about the amount of assembly language in the product.
>
>Note that the civilized way, if you're unhappy with someone's posts, is
>to complain to them and ask them to moderate their behavior.  You then
>fall back on the legal threats if and only if:
>
>	1) your complaint is valid and your threats are real, and
>	2) you've exhausted less drastic means
>
>IBM went directly to the serious legal threats, written to folks who
>they assumed were my bosses, hoping to get me fired.  More, they had
>no basis for the complaints; their arguments were unmitigated bullshit.
>
>So I sent them a little reply about IBM's postings on the net.  The
>above examples are excerpted from page after page of stuff that I sent back.
>I said that I had been laughing off the personal attacks by IBM, but
>since IBM was talking major damage suits as an appropriate response to
>postings then it seemed like a good idea to me...
>
>I never heard back from the IBM lawyer, but I have noticed a quieting
>of IBM postings.  Perhaps there's a correlation.
>
>By the way; this has nothing to do with Larry Solomon's departure from IBM.
>
>	gordon letwin
>	not a spokesperson for microsoft

I assume your post included the *best* parts of the "page after page" of
stuff you sent IBM's lawyers.  If so, and if this caused them to run and
hide, they had no reason.  Personally, I believe IBM simply wants to
generate/maintain (take your pick) a "professional" image, and so asked
for extreme conservatism in net posting.
---
Jim  jdailey@dadd.ti.com  Speaking only for myself and like-minded persons.