An Open letter to Jim Robinson: Can the Bush-Bashers

none ^ | today | me

[Cultural Jihad]

...and you're telling me I have no right to my opinion.

No, I'm not saying you have no right to an opinion. I'm only pointing out how your opinion is wrong.

[Starwind]

You have to have public support to go after this..[snip]...Vote fraud is nothing to them.

Yes I agree. I was thinking more about the implications.

Elections are pivoting on infinitesimal margins, and the Republican Party is adopting the Democrat agenda (so we're told) to 'center itself' and capture enough of the independant/democrat vote to win elections.

While vote fraud is nothing new, this in my mind further illustrates two fallacies:

1) As long as Republicans fail to pursue or prosecute voter fraud, unscrupulous liberals may often (always?) through voter fraud deprive the Republican strategists of any gain on election day by adopting the Democrat agenda.

2) If the Democrats nearly won only by virtue of voter fraud, then adopting the Democrat agenda is not needed, law enforcement is needed.

The Republican edge on election day could in fact come more from preventing voter fraud than from adopting Democrat agenda, and perhaps Republicans are in fact free to be more conservative; the marginal opposition vote Republicans fear being artifcial and illegal.

[Zon]

Generalizations are generally valuable because they are generally true. That's why they continue to be employed by people all the time. Furthermore, there is nothing irrational about generalizing, because that implies that an argument is groundless which isn't applicable to generalizations. When you suggest that posters might better be served by stratifying their posts according to literary ability and further by a highly subjective assessment of "quality" (determined by whom?), that's disturbing and telling. There is already moderation, deletion, and prohibition of some topics, treatments, and comments. What more do you want, a meticulous, micromanaged monitoring of all opinion of just that which disagrees strongly with yours?

It seems obvious enough to me from reading several of your posts on this thread (see typical post pasted below) that your disjointed, attack style of writing would give you the privilege of posting in the elementary forum where you wouldn't be privileged to attack college level writers. Which is for those that do not attack and have developed better research and writing skills. You don't like that.

Yet you could still read all posts on all threads. By reading the higher skilled writers on the college forum you could use that to improve your own writing. Self responsibility to set and achieve goals to write at the high-school-forum level, then on to "college" forum level writing. Get it? Also, it's good that you raised your level of writing in your most recent response.

I do have ideas on how each forum could be monitored and/or self-policed. I stated that in the original post. I'm not going to bother sharing them with you as you have more than demonstrated your insincerity and need to attack.

What more do you want, a meticulous, micromanaged monitoring of all opinion of just that which disagrees strongly with yours?

I want a means to improve the quality of writing while lessening personal attacks so I put forth some ideas on how that might be achieved by structuring three forums wherein the software would facilitate and foster achieving the goals of improved writing while lessening personal attacks.

About six months ago Jim Robinson posted a thread describing new modules and forums that he wanted to implement. Some of them have been implemented and others are in beta or not yet written. He mentioned having modules wherein a Freeper can start his or her own forum where it is by invitation only or open to all.

Below is an example of an ill-conceived and un-skilled written post matching at best the earned-privilege of being posted to the elementary forum.

Sounds like you desire a website characteristic of snot-nosed, pecksniffian academic pedants using bombastic bloviating bilge, boring and barren, but supposedly "civilized"; with poster's worth ranked of course by people like yourself. Why don't you collect a list of the "undesirables" and petition Jim Robinson to personally remove them from this website? I'm hoping to be the first to be banned when the New Web Order descends upon this site and makes it a mutual admiration society for selective commentary.

439 posted on 6/7/02 3:40 AM Eastern by rebelsoldier

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

thank you for coming to my defense

[billva]

I'm catching up on the morning responses to this thread that was running hot in the early am. I just thought you would like to know I'm passing along your gracious addition to the discussion to the moderator. It was so brilliant I thought it deserved official attention.

That's fine by me. If you can insult the President by calling him an empty suit I don't see how it's out of line for me to feel you have an empty spot where most have a brain. Pass this one to him also.

[Cultural Jihad]

[[[ crickets ]]]

[philman_36]

Three legs best.
Three legs representing old age? Two legs and a cane.
Or did you mean "something else"? If "something else"...no need to explain as I understand your gist.

[blackbart.223]

"Actually, Bill Gates is a monopolist and an abusive one at that, which is now a matter of public record (9 states yet contesting the penalty)."

According to whom? I'm not a big Microsoft fan. Bill Gates was targeted by The Clinton administration because he wouldn't pay blackmail money to the troll. I'd vote for Steve Forbes for president but not Bill Gates so your argument lacks merit.

Having said that that, I respect Gates for living the capitalist dream. You seem to have a problem with that.

[blackbart.223]

"Reagan could have NEVER been successful if he had governed according to the caricature that has been created for him. If you are going to hold Reagan up as the standard that GW Bush must meet to be a "real conservative" have the decency to do it with the real record and not a dime store novel."

You really surprise me here. Reagan bombed Libia even though Europe refused to let us use their air space. He backed The Soviets off because he built The US military up to the point that Russia couldn't keep up. As a result of that build up George senior had the means to win The Gulf War hands down.

Now if we want to talk about comprimising with the lefties, GW signed The Campaign finance Reform Bill when he said he would veto it. He backed off from school vouchers after he supported them while trying to get elected.

Reagan never invited Ted Kennedy to The White House for any reason.

My guess is that you don't like Reagan because you are, or were, a government employee who belongs to a union and are still pissed he busted the air traffic controllers union when they went on an illegal strike.

[Starwind]

In the context of the thread (Bush, presidency, bush bashing..) I took your previous statement (in the context in which you said you'd vote for Forbes) to mean you'd also vote Bill Gates president. I assumed that because both names were in the same sentance and context, the grammar implied that to me. I stand corrected by your specific assertion to the contrary.

You highlighted monopolist and asked according to whom?

I assume you are familar with the finding, the appellate finding, and the review finding (by three different bench's) that Microsoft is a monoply and did unlawfully abuse it's monoply power. I believe I can still find and post links for you if you need them. Some 29 states attorneys for several years have been making that case, which the DOJ did finally pick up, but the DOJ wasn't leading, they were somewhat dragged into it by the states. A couple EU countries now also have similar suits pending, clearly in which the DOJ is not involved.

Bill Gates wanted Microsoft to be a monoply, again there many articles and books and detailing his drive to be number 1 and eliminate all competition. Nothing wrong with that, I had a similar goal at one time, and to that extent he is 'living the capitalist dream', to his credit.

My point was that a person who would unlawfully abuse their power (monopoly power in Gate's case) for their own self-serving ends (which is ok for a capitalist) would do the same as President. But that as President, abuse of power for self-serving purposes is harmful to citizens, and as I had assumed (as explained above) you'd vote for Gates as President, I asked why would you do that? Well you've clarified you wouldn't want him as president.

But I don't have a problem with him as a capitalist or a monopolist, provided he/Microsoft obeys the law.

[Texasforever]

My guess is that you don't like Reagan because you are, or were, a government employee who belongs to a union and are still pissed he busted the air traffic controllers union when they went on an illegal strike.

I love Reagan. I love the man not the myth. He was exactly what this country needed at exactly the right moment.

[blackbart.223]

"He was exactly what this country needed at exactly the right moment."

Then I guess we don't disagree too much on this one. Bart.

[blackbart.223]

If I implied that I would vote for Bill Gates for president I stand corrected, however I think Gates was targeted by The Clinton Justice Department because he wouldn't pay the shakedown money they wanted. Local utilities are more of a monopoly than Microsoft and they are so because government allows them to be so.

[BluesDuke]

LOL.......my husband always says he may not be right, but he's NEVER wrong.

:) Your husband is George Steinbrenner? ;) (Just kidding...but I have managed to slog my way through this entire thread and figured a little semicomic - or tragicomic, if you remember the Yankees of the 1980s - relief might be in order...)

[Starwind]

Local utilities are more of a monopoly than Microsoft and they are so because government allows them to be so.

Think about the implications of that for a moment.

First, yes 'local' utilities are monopolies, but they are "regulated" monopolies. Microsoft is not regulated.

Second, If I'm a power producer in say, Illinois, and I want to sell my power to Virgina, I don't have PG&E in California controlling my opportunity in Virgnia. Nor is a California power producer implementing standards in Virginia which an Illinois Power producer must meet.

Conversley, let's take Microsoft vs Netscape. There is no 'local' concept...the market is global. Microsoft made changes to its OS to make it difficult for Netscape to adapt and forced distributors (like Dell) to supply Windows with IE only.

When you're just a competitor, all that is ok, it's just business.

But when you become a monopoly, the law says you cannot use your monply power in the same way. Before you were a monopoly you could run somebody out of business, legally - the assumption is the playing field is level.

But after you become a monoply (an unregulated one), the reality is the playing field is not level, and different laws apply to monopolies...laws that Microsoft (somewhat inanely) defied.

[rebelsoldier]

The post was hyperboly and not to be taken literally or with grave seriousness. Invest in a sense of humor, and stop fantasizing about me.

[rebelsoldier]

With each successive post, you demonstrate how nuts you are and how you could possibly have a compulsive neurotic complex with delusions of superiority, grandure, and mania. You're not a Star Trek geek are you? Instead of a gradation table of lesser and greater "intellects" into which certain posters will be determined to fall, why don't you design a handy color-coded chart instead, and then check yourself into a mental ward. Or are you posting from one already? That Medicaid sure gets around.

[blackbart.223]

"The assumption is the playing field is level."

The playing field has never been level and to assume so is being utopian. Furthermore, who do you think should level the field? The government? They make decisions based on who is the highest bidder. Not very level in that case wouldn't you say?

[rebelsoldier]

You are woefully ignorant of reality. The mainstream liberal media outlets you named have long been eager PROPONENTS of CFR while almost all, and I mean all, conservative commentators vehemently opposed it. You don't have any idea of what you are talking about.

[Starwind]

The assumption is the playing field is level between companies who are not monopolies in an efficient market. Yes companies will create advantage for themselves. They were able to to do so against non-monoplies because the playing field was level - they were allowed to exploit their strengths to gain competitive advantage.

When the playing field is not level, your strengths (such as being the first to market, best browser) cannot be exploited to gain competitive advantage because something 'unlevel' is blocking (such as Microsoft forcing Dell to not do business with Netscape under threat of losing Dell's only opportunity to be a Windows reseller)...that's an abuse of monopoly power.

Yes, the government can give one company an advantage over another. It can also help a small company get bigger by being a big customer, but in fact, the government is the worst customer any company has. Having a government contract is no bed of roses and often costs an inexpericenced company far more than they'll ever earn. While that is happening, their competition, who has no government customizations to fulfill, is under market pressure to produce a cost-effecive product/service with wide (beyond the government) acceptance, and gain the revenues that come with that. That's the company that will be healthier, usually.

You raise good points, but I think we should stay closer to thread topic.