From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???  
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:08:49 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <1993Jan5.215257.11908@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <8326@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>|>Gateway 2000 can choose to put MS-DOS and Windows on all their
>|> computers if they wish, but it's not right for MS to force them to...yet
>|> that's exactly what's happening.
>
>*sigh* misusing the "F" word again.  Here it comes a "C" word:
>
>|> True. The problem is the coercive nature of the deal MS wants you to cut with
>|> them.
>
>Stand by for more doublethink:
>
>|> No, that's restraint of trade, and coercion, and wrong, and illegal.
>
>You're method of argument is interesting--all you do is shout that Microsoft
>is guilty of "forcing" and "coercing", as if it would be true if you say it
>loud and often enough.  George Orwell was very familier with this technique,
>ever read 1984?  "Slavery is Freedom, Hate is Love, Peace is War."  Its used
>by dictators of every color as a tool for thought controll.

Oooooo....Big Brother has invaded Usenet.

[good reasoning, until....*gasp*]

>Lets go to the arbiter of language and see what it says about "force" and
>"coerce".  I'll tell you what mine dictionary has to say about them--and
>don't believe me just because I said it--you all have dictionaries too so 
>look it up for yourself:
>
>	COERCE suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual 
>	or threatened violence or pressure.
>
>In order for an action to properly be called "coercion" there MUST be the
>threat of or actional violence, of the which and by the way so there may be
>no confusion on this point here is the definition of violence:

Hmmm...shall we diagram that sentence?

Coerce     |    suggests     |    overcoming   |    resistance
-----------+-----------------+-----------------+--+-----------------+---. . .
           |                                   |or| unwillingness   |
                                               +--------------------+
     
. . . \---------
       \by           violence
        \----------+------\----------\
                   |       \....or....\
                   |        \          \
                   |         \actual    \threatened
                   +--+            \          \
                   |or|  pressure   \          \
                   +--+-----------------------------

[Ok, it looks crummy, but I ain't got grafix.... :)  IMO, "actual or 
threatened" modifies both "violence" and "pressure", but you can argue that
it modifies just "violence".]

Seems to me that resistance could be overcome by "pressure" as well as "vio-
lence" and still be called "coercion".
 
I guess the rest of the post collapses like a house of cards, doesn't it?
 
Microsoft is certainly capable of pressuring someone into something, 
aren't they?

Not that I believe that Microsoft is *actually* up to anything naughty.  
But it's plausible....  The safest strategy is to not accuse them of any-
thing, but don't trust them, either.  If you're an app developer, you're
a competitor.  Would you trust a competitor?  Didna think so.

>The moral of the story is this: Think for yourself in crystal-clear words.

Ooooh.  Bet you feel stupid now, eh?  :)  I hope your degree isn't in English.

cpk
-- 
"The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only.  If you gotta load or un-
load, go to the WHITE ZONE.  You'll love it.  It's a way of life!" --Zappa

Technology always seems to keep one step ahead of human wisdom.