Microsoft Violates Antitrust Deal [My Title]

Yahoo/Reuters ^ | Wed Sep 18, 6:27 PM ET | WASHINGTON (Reuters)

[Dominic Harr]

Interesting, I didn't see this posted anywhere here at FR altho it was big news on one of the boards I frequent.

[Dominic Harr]

List Bump.

[steveegg]

I'll agree that the update is VERY hard to download (at dial-up speeds on a souped-up cable connection that regularily bests T-1 on downloads), but it's prominently displayed on my Start button (what did they expect, it being the ONLY thing displayed?). BTW, it's easier to use each program's check for prominence.

[LarryM]

Note the bias of Reuters with the headline "Microsoft Violates Antitrust Deal." Their competitors are making such a claim, but no relevant authority has ruled it to be true.

[steve-b]

Microsoft Violates Antitrust Deal

In other news: Saddam Violates Inspection Deal, Clinton Violates Truthful-Testimony Deal.

[Dimensio]

In other news, sky is blue and water is wet.

[Cultural Jihad]

... but it's prominently displayed on my Start button (what did they expect, it being the ONLY thing displayed?).

LOL! MS should have included a hyperlink to the Democratic Party for any tech support issues resulting from that new "Program Access and Defaults" feature.

[danneskjold]

Note the bias of Reuters with the headline "Microsoft Violates Antitrust Deal."

Actually, if you follow the link to the original article, the title reads Rivals: Microsoft Violates Antitrust Deal. I believe the bias here belongs to Dominic...

[Bush2000]

Hey, Harr. Are you incapable of transcribing article titles correctly -- or is your anti-MS bias so pathetic that you have to twist the article titles to suit your agenda?

[Dominic Harr]

What I find interesting is how the known MS defenders take issue with the title, never addressing the substance of the post.

Not surprising, mind you. Just interesting.

Like when the news says, "Republicans say Democrats are lying" so they can paint the following substance as unimportant . . .

I figure that's why this wasn't even posted here to begin with . . . the MS-only folks's habit of distracting, denying, lying and (when all that fails) flaming and shoulting down any criticism of MS has pretty much made any substantive discussion about MS impossible here on FR.

Which is, of course, their goal! Dissent and criticism must be silenced in their world!

[Bush2000]

What I find interesting is how the known MS defenders take issue with the title, never addressing the substance of the post. Not surprising, mind you. Just interesting.

Of course, you're not surprised. You're accustomed to misrepresenting simple truths and fomenting lies.

Like when the news says, "Republicans say Democrats are lying" so they can paint the following substance as unimportant . . .

You think the fact that "Rivals" making such a claim -- as opposed to some authority such as a court -- is irrelevant?

I figure that's why this wasn't even posted here to begin with . . . the MS-only folks's habit of distracting, denying, lying and (when all that fails) flaming and shoulting down any criticism of MS has pretty much made any substantive discussion about MS impossible here on FR. Which is, of course, their goal! Dissent and criticism must be silenced in their world!

Nobody's silencing you. You post your drivel here constantly.

[Bush2000]

But the anti-Microsoft trade group, known as ProComp, complained the move is "hopelessly inadequate and misleading" because the company had made the new utility difficult to obtain and hard to use.

Skepticism is a healthy thing, Harr. But ProComp is a lobbying organization funded by Microsoft's rivals -- the same guys who instigated the antitrust suit. Fact is, you believe anything these guys say as long as it's biased against MS. I can't think of a single ProComp position that you've ever disagreed with.

[Dominic Harr]

What is 'relevant' is the truth or untruth of the claims.

You know, that 'substance of the post' thing you would prefer not to address, so instead you attack the poster of the argument?

Attacking where the info originates is called 'shooting the messender', a favorite tactic of people defending a guilty party.

Like when the D's lie about something and the press prints, "R's claim Ds lie", I believe I stripped out the bias from the headline.

So, any comment on the actual substance of the article? This is not the first time MS has been in trouble for violating the deal they're offering.

[Bush2000]

So, any comment on the actual substance of the article?

ProComp is full of crap, as usual. First, they're whining about people getting the service pack. That's a red herring. People have been getting service packs for years without trouble. ProComp members seem to be the only ones having trouble getting it. Second, they don't like the Set Program Access Defaults functionality. They complain about the usability and terminology. What a bunch of freaking whiners. The more relevant question remains: Does it do what it is supposed to do? The answer is Yes. It allows third party applications to replace those of built-in apps.

This is not the first time MS has been in trouble for violating the deal they're offering.

MS isn't in trouble. This is whining from the bleachers.

[Dominic Harr]

MS isn't in trouble. This is whining from the bleachers.

So blanket denial and attacking the victims is your entire comment on the 'substance' of this?

Good luck with that. I think you'll need it.

[Bush2000]

So blanket denial and attacking the victims is your entire comment on the 'substance' of this? Good luck with that. I think you'll need it.

Answer this, Harr: Has the court ruled on ProComp's allegations? I'll make it easy for you. No, they haven't. So, it's yet another mischaracterization on your part to describe MS as "in trouble" over this issue.

[Dominic Harr]

Answer this, Harr: Has the court ruled on ProComp's allegations?

Ah, yes, the old liberal PC 'add in alleged to the title!'

I examined the complaints, and believe them to be obviously true. Therefore the title stands. I removed the bias the newspeople inserted.

The addition of 'Rivals:' is the bias, just like when they print 'Rs accuse Ds of lying'.

[Bush2000]

I examined the complaints, and believe them to be obviously true. Therefore the title stands. I removed the bias the newspeople inserted.

LMFAO! You have the audacity to accuse me of bias -- and yet you change headlines to suit your whim?!? Geezus, you're a loser.

The addition of 'Rivals:' is the bias, just like when they print 'Rs accuse Ds of lying'.

I'm going to speak s-l-o-w-l-y and use small words so that you can understand: Rivals are the source of the complaint, Harr.

[Dominic Harr]

You have the audacity to accuse me of bias -- and yet you change headlines to suit your whim?!?

I change the headlines to reflect the *facts*.

Interesting how no one here is disputing the facts . . . even you, instead of disputing them just attack the messenger and issue a blanket denial.

It's going to be very interesting to see where this goes. I suspect you'll do your job regardless, posting the talking points you're given.

[Bush2000]

I change the headlines to reflect the *facts*.

The "facts", as perceived through your thick skull...

Interesting how no one here is disputing the facts . . . even you, instead of disputing them just attack the messenger and issue a blanket denial.

I'm not only disputing the facts. I'm also taking issue with the way you're distorting the issues.

It's going to be very interesting to see where this goes. I suspect you'll do your job regardless, posting the talking points you're given.

Nobody hands me talking points, Harr. My opinion belongs solely to me.

Isn't it telling how, even though ProComp knew that the compliance fixes were part of the SP, they declined to provide input, feedback, or test it before it was released. They decided to wait around until after the fact and then have their attorneys start faxing letters to whoever would listen to them. Face it: Your side doesn't care about consumers at all. You're like a bunch of whiny, nippy poodles in the park, constantly trying to take bites out of MS's ankles because your world view only has room for Oracle, Sun, AOL, etc -- "anything but Microsoft".