UPGRADE OR FULL VERSION

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:21:46 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

I understand why you, as a MS partner, accept MS's extra-SBL &
extra-EULA password-protected policies, GREED. By following them,
you get people to buy more copies of software than they really need
under the EULA as written.

There is only one flaw in your idea - I don't sell OEM anything. When
we order parts, we get a quote in the customers name, order in their
name, pay for it on our account, and charge the customer the exact
amount of the order without any markup. It doesn't matter what we
order or from who we order it from, the customer pays the amount we
are charged and benefits from OUR discount, we have never marked up
any product that we buy for customers.

So, it doesn't make a hill of beans to me if the EULA causes people
to or not to purchase more/less software from MS.

The only thing that matters to me is that when we design a solution
and the customer takes ownership, that the licenses completely cover
the customer. I would rather err on the side of too many licenses
than too few licenses, and the cost is not that much different on
most cases.

LOL! Another button pushed! ;-)

"I would rather err on the side of too many licenses than too few
licenses, and the cost is not that much different on most cases."

What the hell, it ain't your money that's buying the "too many
licenses," it's your customers money. I bet you are a MS stockholder
too!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:28:50 +0100, Alias wrote:

Are you really so dense that you can't understand how that page is not
for
the End User and the only contract the End User has agreed to is the
EULA?
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of XP users will never know
of
that web site and it isn't mentioned in the EULA as a place to go for any
contractual updates to the EULA.

Are you so dense that you can't read where I've already agreed that the
information in the EULA is EXPANEDED ON (notice I never said the EULA
points at it) in the SB site, and that I never said that any person has to
visit the site, only those that was to understand the terms AS DESCRIBED
BY MS.

Did you miss that - you keep saying the same thing without understanding
what I say.

Oh, and for contractual and legal matters, there is nothing binding that
keeps the general public from accessing the SB web site. I'm not a SB and
was able to access it with just a simple registration.

Yep, you're too dense.

Alias

"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:11:28 +0100, Alias wrote:

Yep, you're too dense.

Oh, almost forgot - good morning to you too.

It's early evening here.

Heh.

Alias

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:28:50 +0100, Alias wrote:

Are you really so dense that you can't understand how that page is
not for the End User and the only contract the End User has agreed
to is the EULA?
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of XP users will never
know of that web site and it isn't mentioned in the EULA as a place
to go for any contractual updates to the EULA.

Are you so dense that you can't read where I've already agreed that
the information in the EULA is EXPANEDED ON (notice I never said the
EULA points at it) in the SB site, and that I never said that any
person has to visit the site, only those that was to understand the
terms AS DESCRIBED BY MS.

No, it's not an expansion, it is a totally "New Rule." Nowhere in the
EULA does it even hint that a computer with MS OEM WXP installed on it
can be upgraded to a point where it becomes a new & different computer!

This is where you are totally dense. The changing of the motherboard
equalling a new computer, is not an expansion of any existing rule in
either the SBL or the EULA, but is a totally different and "New Rule!"


Did you miss that - you keep saying the same thing without
understanding what I say.

Did you that the motherboard "New Rule" is in direct contradiction with
the SBL, when it defines a 'fully assembled computer system," as
"consisting of at least a central processing unit, a
motherboard, a hard drive, a power supply, and a case?"

The motherboard is only one of five parts of a computer in the SBL, yet
MS creates their password-protected, registration-required "New Rule"
where changing one out of the 5 parts that make up a computer in the SBL
equals a totally new and different computer!

And then you have the EULA that NEVER mentions anything about upgrading
a computer to a point where it becomes a new & different computer! So
who is bullsh*tting whom, here? MS has had every opportunity over the
last dozen or more years to clearly define when upgrading a computer
turn that computer into a totally different and new computer, yet they
haven't! No judge in his right mind would even enforce MS's
password-protected, registration-required extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules" on
any End User, and the only people that think that is even a remote
possibility are moronic MicroSycophants like you.

To his credit, even Bruce Chambers, one of the most rabid pro-EULA MVPs
in MSGroups, doesn't buy this extra-SBL/EULA crap.

Oh, and for contractual and legal matters, there is nothing binding
that keeps the general public from accessing the SB web site. I'm not
a SB and was able to access it with just a simple registration.

So registration was required in order to get through the
password-protection. What judge in his right mind would rule that that
is the same as the EULA, which you don't have to register to read?!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

This is totally boring.

Here's a better story.

I got home at Sat 4:50pm which is my birthday, Niel was gasping for =
breath out the front. I asked did he want an ambulance and he said no. =
So I waited and he finally said "get me a valium". So I got a glass of =
water and a valium (try finding drugs without glasses) and put them next =
to him. Bill, whose wife val died a month ago (this is second household =
death this month and third last 6 months), came out and held the glass =
for him while I got a wet towel to wipe spew of him. He was now unable =
to talk so we called an ambulance as he couldn't say no ("If you don't =
say no we we call an ambulance"). His head was dropping forward and and =
he was p[icking it up to suck in a gasp of air. I held his head up for a =
while. But he was still breathing for himself. I put wet towel on his =
head to hopefully provide relief. We heard ambulance approaching so I =
told Bill to monitor his breathing and went to where ambulance could =
find us quickly. It arrived at 5:04pm. I had already collected all his =
medications (and thought chalking V on his head a bit too disaster =
like). Ambulance arrived, advised medical history (heart attacks and =
what he claimed were panic attacks) and the valium and gave medicine to =
ambos.

They walked over and discovered he was no longer breathing or beating so =
laid him down, half out the front door and half inside. They called a =
paramedic ambulance as well and while we waited they gave CPR while =
trying to fix electrodes. My other neighbours had noticed by now and =
were coming over.

In another 5 mins the paramedics arrived and they spent twenty minutes =
preparing syringes of andreneline, bi carbonate of soda (no idea why), =
and an IV drip. They then shocked him three times at which stage some =
computer said "Check Patient". They then shocked him a few more times.

They then gave 1/2 hearted CPR while the loaded him in the paramedic =
ambulance, left the general ambulance parked outside and all 4 went off =
in the second ambulance at 6 PM. We sent one of the ambulance person's =
phone with him thinking it was Niel's (all but me thought he was going =
to recover). The hospital was unable to revive him either (not that that =
was likely).

I found the ambos badge so waited at his ambulance for an hour to give =
it back. An 1/2 hour later he came back saying seen my blue phone and we =
said it's at hospital. He left and a person bringing Niel's possessions =
turned up, incl the phone. So I rang ambulance dispatch and they sent a =
third ambulance for the phone (but I was in back yards fielding calls =
from the ambos friends while trying to tell some of Niel's friends (who =
live at the back of us) he was dead.

We then told his friends up and down the street that Niel had died at =
5pm.

Niel was known as the Mayor of Randwick as he knew every person in =
Randwick, minded every house on the street when people were away, like a =
beneign Dorrie Evens. 20 to 30 people visited him everyday as he held =
court on the front yard.

I should have continued to hold his head up and not trust the =
intoxicated 73 yo bill whose wife is a bit less than a month dead. I =
should have earnt his ire and called the ambulance anyway (would have =
save 5-10 minutes), he had many heart attacks last 6 months and didn't =
go to hospital for any but the first. He didn't want to go back to =
smoker unfriendy places. He I had had known he was unconscioused rather =
than in too much pain to talk I would have put him in the coma position =
(the position for breathing problems is the one the person finds most =
comfortable).

His sister came down from Brisbane today. He left a message on her phone =
at about 4 pm so they recorded it.

I promised him several times after his "turns" that I would look after =
his cat (which I will, but I wasn't expecting the financial penalty so =
soon). Lucky muggsy is over 10 so it won't be too long. He's a bit =
confused as to why all of us who don't feed him suddenly are. And where =
is Niel. He waits outside for Niel to return. Unfortunatly Muggsie has =
expensive tastes in food. He will only eat fresh food (must come out of =
a can NOW) and won't eat the same type twice in a row. So generally he =
has 1/3 of three cans of food a day (with other 2/3rd being tossed) and =
dry food that has to be freshly poured. He eats 20 times a day.

Of course we also had two visits from the police.


Now what was that about an EULA?
--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.microscum.com/mscommunity/
"Leythos" wrote in message =
news
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:56:45 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

What the hell, it ain't your money that's buying the "too many=20
licenses," it's your customers money. I bet you are a MS stockholder =

too!
=20
I had an opportunity to buy MS stock in the early days and didn't, I
almost kick myself for that. As I currently don't own Any stocks I can =
say
I have no vested interest in any of the companies that we utilize to =
build
solutions for other companies.
=20
I bet you've never been to a company that's been through an Audit and =
then
fined for not having enough/valid licenses?
=20
I like this new nicer conversation method you've started with today, =
it
makes it easier to chat with you when you're not being mouthy.
=20
--=20

remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:45:00 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

And the site is password-protected until the End User "VOLUNTARILY"
registers for that site. And since that is a site for SYSTEM
BUILDERS and not END USERS, I fail to see how it is remotely
applicable to END USERS!

If you don't want the information you don't have to access the site.
I'm not a System Builder either, but I still accessed the site -
there is nothing on the pages (and I'm sure you will agree) that
legally stop the Public from accessing the site - at least it's not
been tested in court

You really are a moron. There is no legal requirement that forces an
End User to register for the System Builders site, so until proven
otherwise in court, the "New Rules" written there are not legally or
morally applicable to them.

MS's word is not the law, and it isn't up to the End User to prove what
they can and cannot do with the very expensive software that was sold to
them. If MS feels that someone isn't following any of their rules, it
is up to them to seek out a court to enforce those rules. That Contract
Law, plain and simple!


And I really do love how you nit-picked one phrase out of my whole
post! Afraid of answering the tough questions I posed in it,
especially the one where the SBL and the EULA conflict with each
other, and which one would be applicable to the End User that is
his/her own System Builder!

Actually, since I agree that the SBL and EULA provide a possible
conflict in terms for a vague section I didn't see any reason to
respond - I've already said that I agree that it's vague, that it's
clarified in the SB site, and that I will abide by the expanded
definition and other clarifications that MS has provided.

Yet you offer no opinion at all about which one, the SBL or the EULA,
would be applicable to the END USER! No Balls!


Consider your button pushed, Lamethos! ;-) ROFL!

LOL, you couldn't push my buttons if you tried - after I figured you
out weeks ago it was easy to play your game.

But you don't play the game well at all!

You are responding to me. And if you didn't I wouldn't have as much of
an opportunity to expose more of my fellow consumers to my point of view
concerning MS's licensing terms, and to expose them to the irrational
beliefs of those that blindly accept anything MS says as the Gospel
according to Bill.

You just play right into my hands! ;-)

Thanks!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

David Candy wrote:
This is totally boring.

Here's a better story.

I got home at Sat 4:50pm which is my birthday, Niel was gasping for
breath out the front. I asked did he want an ambulance and he said
no. So I waited and he finally said "get me a valium". So I got a
glass of water and a valium (try finding drugs without glasses) and
put them next to him. Bill, whose wife val died a month ago (this is
second household death this month and third last 6 months), came out
and held the glass for him while I got a wet towel to wipe spew of
him. He was now unable to talk so we called an ambulance as he
couldn't say no ("If you don't say no we we call an ambulance"). His
head was dropping forward and and he was p[icking it up to suck in a
gasp of air. I held his head up for a while. But he was still
breathing for himself. I put wet towel on his head to hopefully
provide relief. We heard ambulance approaching so I told Bill to
monitor his breathing and went to where ambulance could find us
quickly. It arrived at 5:04pm. I had already collected all his
medications (and thought chalking V on his head a bit too disaster
like). Ambulance arrived, advised medical history (heart attacks and
what he claimed were panic attacks) and the valium and gave medicine
to ambos.

They walked over and discovered he was no longer breathing or beating
so laid him down, half out the front door and half inside. They
called a paramedic ambulance as well and while we waited they gave
CPR while trying to fix electrodes. My other neighbours had noticed
by now and were coming over.

In another 5 mins the paramedics arrived and they spent twenty
minutes preparing syringes of andreneline, bi carbonate of soda (no
idea why), and an IV drip. They then shocked him three times at which
stage some computer said "Check Patient". They then shocked him a few
more times.

They then gave 1/2 hearted CPR while the loaded him in the paramedic
ambulance, left the general ambulance parked outside and all 4 went
off in the second ambulance at 6 PM. We sent one of the ambulance
person's phone with him thinking it was Niel's (all but me thought he
was going to recover). The hospital was unable to revive him either
(not that that was likely).

I found the ambos badge so waited at his ambulance for an hour to
give it back. An 1/2 hour later he came back saying seen my blue
phone and we said it's at hospital. He left and a person bringing
Niel's possessions turned up, incl the phone. So I rang ambulance
dispatch and they sent a third ambulance for the phone (but I was in
back yards fielding calls from the ambos friends while trying to tell
some of Niel's friends (who live at the back of us) he was dead.

We then told his friends up and down the street that Niel had died at
5pm.

Niel was known as the Mayor of Randwick as he knew every person in
Randwick, minded every house on the street when people were away,
like a beneign Dorrie Evens. 20 to 30 people visited him everyday as
he held court on the front yard.

I should have continued to hold his head up and not trust the
intoxicated 73 yo bill whose wife is a bit less than a month dead. I
should have earnt his ire and called the ambulance anyway (would have
save 5-10 minutes), he had many heart attacks last 6 months and
didn't go to hospital for any but the first. He didn't want to go
back to smoker unfriendy places. He I had had known he was
unconscioused rather than in too much pain to talk I would have put
him in the coma position (the position for breathing problems is the
one the person finds most comfortable).

His sister came down from Brisbane today. He left a message on her
phone at about 4 pm so they recorded it.

I promised him several times after his "turns" that I would look
after his cat (which I will, but I wasn't expecting the financial
penalty so soon). Lucky muggsy is over 10 so it won't be too long.
He's a bit confused as to why all of us who don't feed him suddenly
are. And where is Niel. He waits outside for Niel to return.
Unfortunatly Muggsie has expensive tastes in food. He will only eat
fresh food (must come out of a can NOW) and won't eat the same type
twice in a row. So generally he has 1/3 of three cans of food a day
(with other 2/3rd being tossed) and dry food that has to be freshly
poured. He eats 20 times a day.

Of course we also had two visits from the police.

Sorry for your loss David. Don't beat yourself up on what you could
have done differently, as anyone that has lost a friend or family member
will do anyway. There is always something that we feel we could have
done differently, but that doesn't mean it would have changed the
outcome in any way.

Again, you have my sincerest condolences, and celebrate his life with
those that were most touched by him.

--
Kurtis Kirsch

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:25:11 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

What judge in his right mind would rule that that is the same as the
EULA, which you don't have to register to read?!

I don't think I've ever claimed a legal position on it - button.

"If you don't want the information you don't have to access the site.
I'm
not a System Builder either, but I still accessed the site - there is
nothing on the pages (and I'm sure you will agree) that legally stop the
Public from accessing the site - at least it's not been tested in court
"

"Oh, and for contractual and legal matters, there is nothing binding
that
keeps the general public from accessing the SB web site. I'm not a SB
and
was able to access it with just a simple registration."

What stops the general public from access, is required registration for
a site that is NOT applicable to them as an End User.

And there is no EULA rule that requires any registration, or any mention
that the are bound by anything that is written on the SB site.

Again, I love you take one sentence, and only reply to that.

Here is the parts you totally ignored, so I guess you are in agreement
with it!

Are you so dense that you can't read where I've already agreed that
the information in the EULA is EXPANEDED ON (notice I never said the
EULA points at it) in the SB site, and that I never said that any
person has to visit the site, only those that was to understand the
terms AS DESCRIBED BY MS.

No, it's not an expansion, it is a totally "New Rule." Nowhere in the
EULA does it even hint that a computer with MS OEM WXP installed on it
can be upgraded to a point where it becomes a new & different
computer!

This is where you are totally dense. The changing of the motherboard
equalling a new computer, is not an expansion of any existing rule in
either the SBL or the EULA, but is a totally different and "New Rule!"


Did you miss that - you keep saying the same thing without
understanding what I say.

Did you that the motherboard "New Rule" is in direct contradiction
with the SBL, when it defines a 'fully assembled computer system," as
"consisting of at least a central processing unit, a
motherboard, a hard drive, a power supply, and a case?"

The motherboard is only one of five parts of a computer in the SBL,
yet MS creates their password-protected, registration-required "New
Rule" where changing one out of the 5 parts that make up a computer
in the SBL equals a totally new and different computer!

And then you have the EULA that NEVER mentions anything about
upgrading a computer to a point where it becomes a new & different
computer! So who is bullsh*tting whom, here? MS has had every
opportunity over the last dozen or more years to clearly define when
upgrading a computer turn that computer into a totally different and
new computer, yet they haven't! No judge in his right mind would
even enforce MS's password-protected, registration-required
extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules" on any End User, and the only people that
think that is even a remote possibility are moronic MicroSycophants
like you.

To his credit, even Bruce Chambers, one of the most rabid pro-EULA
MVPs in MSGroups, doesn't buy this extra-SBL/EULA crap.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:38:08 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

There is no legal requirement that forces an End User to register for
the System Builders site,

Hey, careful, you are agreeing with me. I said the exact same thing -
nothing forcing anyone, legal or not, to read the information on the
site, and there's no legal issue keeping anyone from reading it -
button.

Um, no. You took what I said out of context. A half-statement.

In context:

If you don't want the information you don't have to access the site.
I'm not a System Builder either, but I still accessed the site -
there is nothing on the pages (and I'm sure you will agree) that
legally stop the Public from accessing the site - at least it's not
been tested in court

You really are a moron. There is no legal requirement that forces an
End User to register for the System Builders site, so until proven
otherwise in court, the "New Rules" written there are not legally or
morally applicable to them.

What stops the End User from reading MS's "New Rules" is REQUIRED
REGISTRATION, for a site that is NOT even applicable to them as a END
USER.

For those of you out there lurking, this is what the sycophantic
supporters of MS's "New Rules" have to do, take things out of context.
Whether it is taking my words out of context, or taking the SYSTEM
BUILDER "New Rules" out of context and attempting to make them
applicable to you the END USER.

Don't be fooled by those that take every word of MS's as Gospel. An
educated consumer is less likely to parted with his/her own money
unnecessarily. MS and its ass-kissing supporters prey on the suckers,
so don't fall their con-job.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:16:15 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Here is the parts you totally ignored, so I guess you are in
agreement with it!

And by the way, did anyone hear that button being pushed again? ;-)


I didn't reply to it because I already know your position and you
already know my position.

Yeah, my position reflects the agreements as they are agreed to and
yours is that MS's password-protected, registration-required System
Builder "New Rules" are applicable on End Users, superceding what they
agreed to follow on the EULA.

My position is a rational reflection of contract law, and yours is some
delusional twisting of reality in a parrelell MicroWorld, where
everything that MS writes anyway is applicable to everyone and
everywhere throughout all eternity!

It serves no point in continuing to sound
off to each other on things that we each already understand that the
other is not going to change their view on. Did you miss that concept

somewhere?

LOL! No, I missed the part where you have a rational explanation for
insisting that MS's password-protected, registration-required System
Builder "New Rules" are applicable to End Users! Just because you have
repeated that it is more than once is not a rational explanation.

Mine explanation of why MS's password-protected, registration-required,
extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules" aren't applicable is justified under
contract law. It is not up to IBM to just mindlessly accept SCO's
legally unsubstantiated claims about the UNIX License, it is up to SCO
to prove those claims are valid and legally enforceable under the law.

And MS's OEM customers are under no legal obligation to mindlessly
accept MS's password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA
"New Rules" just because MS and YOU, make that unsubstantiated claim.


I'm not ignoring it, I just didn't see any point in making the post
that much larger in order to restate how I feel after having already
restated it many times. Got it now?

Because you have yet to explain WHY you believe what you do, and leave
it up to me to ascribe your motivation.

Oh, and in case you missed it, lack of statement does not mean agree
or disagree - but, since you are the master of determining what an
agreement is I would have though you would already know that.

There is no agreement between the End User and MS to follow MS's
password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules,"
Lamethos. That is the point that YOU are totally unwilling to accept,
and you have yet to show any rational explanation as to why you
unrealistically believe that some agreement exists between the End User
and MS that justifies MS's password-protected, registration-required,
extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules."

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:28:34 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Don't be fooled by those that take every word of MS's as Gospel.

I agree, don't be fooled by anyone, lest of all me. Don't take
anyone's word for anything, unless you are willing to accept the
consequences for that trust.

Don't even take MS's word. They are the last ones anyone should ask,
especially on password-protected, registration-required, Non-End User
web sites!

But you are a fool! You accept MS's words, no matter what reality says.


I'm one of those people that plays by almost all the rules,

Even those that have no concept in reality. You don't have a mind of
your own. You have a MicroBrain.

and if MS
says they consider the "Motherboard" to be the computer for purposes
of OEM Licensing then I'm going to stick with that definition as no
matter what happens I can't go wrong.

That's right, it's not your money, it's your customers!

If by some change this ever
gets court tested and it's found that MS is right,

That will be a cold day in hell! MS is too chicken to excercise their
due diligence when it comes to individuals and MS's unsubstantiated
usage licencing claims.

At least SCO has the balls to try and prove their claims in a real court
of law!

then I'm in the
clear and so would anyone be that followed their directions.

And if that cold day in hell ever comes around, your customers may just
sue you along with MS to regain their money on all the extra license you
sold them. You would be a willing co-conspirator, helping a monopoly
enforce its bogus unsubstantiated claims on its suckers, um, I mean
customers!

Likewise, if the courts hold that MS any part makes the computer and
that as long as you keep at least one original part, that it's the
same computer, then I'm still covered.

Read what I wrote above, you may not be as covered as you think!


The button passes to you now.

LOL! Showing the irrational lengths you are willing to go in order to
convince people that MS's password-protected, registration-required,
extra-SBL/EULA words are applicable to them as End Users is my goal for
this thread. The more you squirm around and unsuccessfully attempt to
try to justified it, is my ultimate goal for this thread. So keep
thinking you are pushing my button, you are only helping me. Thanks!
;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

lurker=kurt

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:31:29 GMT, Leythos wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:28:34 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Don't be fooled by those that take every word of MS's as Gospel.

I agree, don't be fooled by anyone, lest of all me. Don't take anyone's
word for anything, unless you are willing to accept the consequences for
that trust.

I'm one of those people that plays by almost all the rules, and if MS says
they consider the "Motherboard" to be the computer for purposes of OEM
Licensing then I'm going to stick with that definition as no matter what
happens I can't go wrong. If by some change this ever gets court tested
and it's found that MS is right, then I'm in the clear and so would anyone
be that followed their directions. Likewise, if the courts hold that MS
any part makes the computer and that as long as you keep at least one
original part, that it's the same computer, then I'm still covered.

The button passes to you now.

Pardon me for intercepting the button but I've been following it for a
number of days and this last post pushed my button.

Leythos, you seem to have taken the position of accepting the MS
position to avoid any future retribution should courts (if ever it
comes to that) find MS is correct. In my opionion that is an
illogical position to take and can become dangerous.

Guru's of various ilks have used and are using this tactic of
threatening potential future harm to coerce others into accepting
their "beliefs." This practice of threatening future harm is rampant
in many aspects of most societies. It is dangerous practice and has
led and will continue to lead to major problems.

In my opnion, it is far better to have open discussions and allow each
individual to weigh the merits of the arguments without appealing to
to this fear mongoring.

I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you, Michael,
completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was also completely over
your head. I won't bother explaining.

--
LB

"Linda B" wrote in message
...
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you, Michael,
completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was also completely
over
your head. I won't bother explaining.

--
LB

No need. It's obvious you confuse lies and ad hominem attacks with "satire".

Alias