From: discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft using "Force"???
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:45:17 GMT

In article <8358@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.215257.11908@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>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.
>
>The difference here is that Orwell's technique involves redefining words to
>the direct opposite of their accepted meanings; in this discussion, the
>analogous technique would be something like "Consent is Coercion". I'm not
>arguing from that premise; I'm arguing that the agreements that major cloners
>sign with MS are made under economic duress.

But whether or not they are "force" or "coersion" is entirely subjective.
One could arguable debate that EVERY choice that people make is because of
force or coersion (i.e., "I bought a house because apartments are too
expensive" or "I bought a 4Runner because Toyota makes safer trucks than
Ford...").


I don't deny that the agreement in question is advantageous to the 
supplier, Microsoft... but what's to stop IBM from drafting their own
agreement?  If you feel the Microsoft "forces" the agreement on its
customers, would you say that products are "forced" unto us through
TV commercials--and that the action should be stopped (after all, I watch
Fox because of I want to watch STNG... not automobile commercials!).

>
>>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:
>
>Oh, goody. A dictionary flame. Here's what my dictionary (The American
>Heritage Dictionary, New College edition - the only one handy at the moment)
>has to say about force and coercion:
>
>force: (among the physics-related definitions) 5. A capacity for affecting the
>mind or behavior.
>coercion: The art or practice of coercing. (OK, so:)
>coerce: To force to act or think in a given manner; to compel by pressure or
>threat.
>pressure: 4. A constraining influence upon the mind or will.
>threat: an expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or
>punishment on a person or thing.

And Jay, you are absolutely right.  Violence does not prove whether or not
"force" or "coercion" is in effect.  However, those words ARE subjective.
I, being a vendor, do not feel that Microsoft tried to "force" me into an
agreement.  I've seen it, I thought about it, and I turned it down--and no
army of Microsoft Lawyers have come pounding at my door either.

I CHOSE not to sign up for an MLP... just as those who did CHOSE to sign
for one.  And I would be very put out to think that a government
agency can go around and remove CHOICES that I and my company can make.
Sure, if Microsoft DID "force" me to sign (against my will) I would have
welcomed external intervention--but they haven't, and I daresay they WON'T...
and my company is still highly profitable without MS's MLP... but it was
my CHOICE.

>
>>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:
>
>Nope. Coercion can be nonviolent, but harmful.
>

True.  But is MS's (not the "market") intend harm?

>>If you misuse a word when you talk, that indicates that you arn't the one who
>>is talking--you are using the word how you've been told it should work.
>
>I'm not misusing the words, though.
>
>>The moral of the story is this: Think for yourself in crystal-clear words.
>
>I am. Are you?
>-- 
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy