From: soh3@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Reply-To: soh3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of sociology
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:16:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.193354.22275@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>Nope.  Not really.  A Ford car salesman posts a news in a thread in
>>which people talks about a GM car and says you can buy a Ford car for less.
>>Then, what would you say.  And how do you know that in that context
>>the people would in any way be interested in the other alternative, say,
>>a Ford car or a MSC package?
>
>     I don't see that it makes a difference - information is information,
>and can't harm anyone.  If there is a Ford car available for less than
>a car I am considering buying, I would like that information - I can
>use it to make a more informed choice.
>    Consider this:  If the exact same post, word for word, came
>from a .edu site, would you have had the same reaction?  If not,
>why?

No.  It would react to a post coming from a .edu site.  In fact, I have
a two different standards, one for those who do not have any motive or
vested interest in the product in question and another for those who 
*do* have motive and vested interest in it.  Thus, I would naturally 
assume that a post from .edu is a post from the viewpoint of a consumer of
a product.  On the other hand, a post from a microsoft.com when the 
product in question is MS's or its competitor's is an entirely different
matter and must be treated differently.  Remeber that I do not object to
any posts from .com site.  On the contrary, my main objection was to
the kinds of posts that is objectionable by definition: a definition that
is accepted and assumed to be accepted by all parties on the net, which
is the use of the net should be fair and should not be used to the interest
of any single party.  Yes, a post from a .com site can also be disinterested
and informative and these are the posts more than welcome on the net.

>
>
>>>     You also seem to have this idea that people have to be nice to
>>>their competitors.  Please justify this.
>>
>>Nope.  I do not have such illusion.  It is against nettiquette not to be
>>polite even to your competitor.  So I do not defend this myself.  You
>>should defend yourself on this point.  Where do you get the idea that
>>you can be nasty (not to be nice, so to speak) on your competitor on the
>>net, a public forum (may I remind you)?
>
>    Min, you are a hypocrite.  You tried to flame me several times in
>another thread, and now have the gall to post about "nettiquette".
>Please...

Flame and nettiquette?  What do these two have in common?  Don't you think
you were flamed because I perceived that you were not honoring the nettiquette
in the first place?  Don't you still get it?  I was trying to communicate
and you wouldn't listen.

I think I justified my position when you asked to do.  And when I asked
you to defend yourself, you instead chosed to flame me.  But what I really
feel is necessary on your part is to answer the question whether you feel
you're morally and ethically justified **not to be nice to your competitors**
on the net as you seemed to think.  Please answer.

>>>>  Also have you seen
>>>>many people other than microsoft employees defending windows?  
>>>
>>>      Yes.  Which newgroup have you been reading?
>>
>>The same news group as you are in, and still I have only one person
>>denying this point (of course, he was not from MS).  One does not make
>>many.  Get the fact, Phil.
>
>     Maybe your newsfeed isn't working properly...

Get the fact and count the posts.   My newsfeed works just fine.

Min



Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy