Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[JR North]

jakdedert obviously doesn't have much experience with women. If he did,
this episode would not be noteworthy at all.
JR

You stomped down the stairs after I committed the sin of interrupting you.

You marched into the kitchen and yelled that 'We don't have time to go
to the store! We have to clean this house! We don't have time before
we leave. We're going to eat at 4:00. Get yourself a bowl of cereal.
You're just trying to get out of the meeting. You're afraid to talk to
Colleen. You're just trying to duck Margrite.'

All this without a cross word coming out of my mouth.

Then you said that maybe I should leave. I didn't want to. I just
wanted to eat and get our afternoon in gear--whatever it entailed. You
repeated many of the above accusations and suggested again that maybe I
shouldn't be there.

When I tried to leave, you took it to a physical level.

All of the above happened with Becca present...much of it with Colleen
present.

None of it did I expect.

Your 'apology' was not given with nearly the same amount of emotion...in
fact none that I could discern.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:



John Doe wrote:



Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:




John Doe writes:




The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as
has been explained many times before, is because of network
effects and a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of
anything that Microsoft has done.


All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to
steal it.

ROTFLOL


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was one
of the most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,


Or maybe it's the hard drugs you are using.

Now you've descended into witless name calling, not that it was all that
grand a descent from where you started.

Message-ID: <11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Didn't forget a thing, pal.


Obviously you did.

Obviously not.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact
and not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about
Netscape giving Navigator away is true, it is no different than
allowing pirates to steal Windows and later putting the squeeze
on us (think Windows Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?


I think you have it backwards.

Then you'd be wrong.

Netscape began giving navigator away
after Microsoft began pushing navigator out of the market.

That's when they returned to giving it away.

Netscape began life as Mosaic Communications Corp in April 1994 and took on
the name Netscape in November of the same year.

Read and weep http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/newsrelease1.html

"Netscape, Available Now,
Builds On Tradition of Freeware for the Net

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (October 13, 1994) -- Mosaic Communications
Corporation today announced that it is offering its newly introduced
Netscape network navigator free to users via the Internet.
..
..
..
"Making Netscape freely available to Internet users is Mosaic
Communications' way of contributing to the explosive growth of innovative
information applications on global networks," said Andreessen, vice
president of technology at Mosaic Communications.
"

That loss
was approximately 17% of Netscape's income.

After they wiped out the competition and acquired a dominate position, yes.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:



Peter wrote:



In article <Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102>,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers. And if you pretend to not know the difference
between an operating system and an application, you are just a
liar. There is a gray area but it's not that difficult to
generally separate an operating system from applications.



But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around
determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the
O/S? Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed,
then the O/S would not work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of
the major reasons why the case dragged on for so long? One set
of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a necessary
component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE
completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major
factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't
just a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have
applications as it's components, it was far more complicated
than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.


The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.

That's certainly your opinion but what makes you think your mind reading
skills work any better on Bill Gates than they do on me?

On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.


Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.

In other words you can't support the theory.

A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.


Which could better be included by OEMs

I've already explained why an O.S. supplier would want to control things
like critical updates and other O.S. functions.

or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.

Feel free to install anything you like, just as you've always been able to.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.


I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

You're right, I haven't experienced any problems.

Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.

Then don't use Windows.

 

[John Doe]

Liar troll

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:

Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-11!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:00:09 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <11pvgnqdmkqic9f corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com> <8a1hm11b7cdbko4f1ds8ee8d5s1daispbl 4ax.com> <0V4af.577$bU3.177499 twister.southeast.rr.com> <u88im195941fm8f4tbl8cjq9tnib11prvi 4ax.com> <ZZednQ-gsM6eoPTeRVn-pg midco.net> <4398E636.DF76BAC7 earthlink.net> <YIKmf.5730$PX2.473113 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pn5mpiojisd91 corp.supernews.com> <c7Nmf.10704$kt5.1054266 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pobfcke5r50b6 corp.supernews.com> <FdWmf.360$PQ3.14228 news20.bellglobal.com> <11pofogljj3u3f2 corp.supernews.com> <%EXmf.400$PQ3.28531 news20.bellglobal.com> <GkYmf.6406$Eu3.5706 fe07.lga> <WEYmf.92$El.19427 news20.bellglobal.com> <11ppupr51udv23e corp.supernews.com> <Xns972A100D147Afollydom 207.115.17.102> <11pq9qep0bghd9e corp.supernews.com> <Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102> <MPG.1e07d55223d81ac098981d news3.fast24.net> <11pt44i55gpote9 corp.supernews.com> <Xns972B7AA8118C9follydom 207.115.17.102> <11pv2r8ph6386eb corp.supernews.com> <Xns972BEAA7F92D6follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: <Xns972BEAA7F92D6follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 131
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:230005 sci.electronics.repair:433071 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452709

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:



Peter wrote:



In article <Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102>,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers. And if you pretend to not know the difference
between an operating system and an application, you are just a
liar. There is a gray area but it's not that difficult to
generally separate an operating system from applications.



But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around
determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the
O/S? Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed,
then the O/S would not work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of
the major reasons why the case dragged on for so long? One set
of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a necessary
component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE
completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major
factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't
just a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have
applications as it's components, it was far more complicated
than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.


The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.

That's certainly your opinion but what makes you think your mind reading
skills work any better on Bill Gates than they do on me?


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.


Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.

In other words you can't support the theory.


A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.


Which could better be included by OEMs

I've already explained why an O.S. supplier would want to control things
like critical updates and other O.S. functions.

or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.

Feel free to install anything you like, just as you've always been able to.

The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.


I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

You're right, I haven't experienced any problems.

Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.

Then don't use Windows.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

Many computers are handed down.

A handed-down computer still contains the operating system
originally installed upon it,

Many people upgrade the hardware and then update the operating
system. You act stupid.

<snipped an opinion based on the incorrect premise>

You are out of touch.


Crooks always feel justified.

The United States appeals court wrote:
"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."

But not everyone is a crook.

Microsoft is.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:52:13 -0600
From: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: The truth about OS/2!!! [Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:52:06 +0100
Organization: Just Mxsmanic
Message-ID: <dlcvp1pdm0auvr06ue4831jk75uiih4hhq 4ax.com
References: <Xns972A747BD9A03follydom 207.115.17.102> <lmgrp1116godjeuuq362uc34dvrbeu48ub 4ax.com> <Xns972AB206F4F76follydom 207.115.17.102> <73jsp1hesnrhfu01optr4uh8gm6cn0l9gj 4ax.com> <Xns972AD4EE1CB16follydom 207.115.17.102> <11psu6kc5pt47c5 corp.supernews.com> <Xns972B7D6202A4Cfollydom 207.115.17.102> <rs5up1t91d1e3tkdjgndefoa3l7sj77ti1 4ax.com> <Xns972BA0DE3F99Afollydom 207.115.17.102> <oj1vp1trin234sn96pnqmduepokp2fc6q2 4ax.com> <Xns972BECB9975Dfollydom 207.115.17.102
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 18
X-Trace: sv3-EWtIkbVCwuLHjzV25QkURiNp0m0LkwwTBKZqzdGnA+JAItkKDqys4deRT3iSW9vj9N7UbaRqyzM08OR!rnrLjWMkE74UQylIx47LzwK68F5nFZP0VuxvYsuqqbtU7pfQm2XUlnZn8lEDTIVYEPcFqlw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:230001 sci.electronics.repair:433063 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:452707

 

[John Doe]

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:



John Doe wrote:



Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:




John Doe writes:




The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as
has been explained many times before, is because of network
effects and a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of
anything that Microsoft has done.


All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to
steal it.

ROTFLOL


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was
one of the most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,


Or maybe it's the hard drugs you are using.

Now you've descended into witless name calling, not that it was
all that grand a descent from where you started.

My name calling should flatter you. Obviously you will say anything
not no matter how frivolous, in an attempt to win an argument. Any
technical advice you give should be verified by the reader with
someone who can be trusted.

Message-ID: <11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact
and not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about
Netscape giving Navigator away is true, it is no different than
allowing pirates to steal Windows and later putting the squeeze
on us (think Windows Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?


I think you have it backwards.

Then you'd be wrong.

Netscape began giving navigator away
after Microsoft began pushing navigator out of the market.

That's when they returned to giving it away.

Netscape began life as Mosaic Communications Corp in April 1994
and took on the name Netscape in November of the same year.

Read and weep http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/newsrelease1.html

You provided a citation. I am impressed.

That loss was approximately 17% of Netscape's income.

After they wiped out the competition and acquired a dominate
position, yes.

Which doesn't mean anything by itself. If Netscape were
overcharging, Microsoft would have been able to gain market share
without illegally using its Windows monopoly.

 

[John Doe]

The federal appeals court wrote:

"...we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."

"...we reject Microsoft's argument that we should vacate the
District Court's Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to consumer
confusion."

"The District Court found that the restrictions Microsoft imposed in
licensing Windows to OEMs prevented many OEMs from distributing
browsers other than IE."

"By preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to
IE, the license restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a
rival browser and, therefore, protects Microsoft's monopoly from the
competition that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we
conclude that the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive."

"These restrictions impose significant costs upon the OEMs; prior to
Microsoft's prohibiting the practice, many OEMs would change the
appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. (March 1997
letter from Hewlett-Packard to Microsoft: "We are responsible for
the cost of technical support of our customers, including the 33% of
calls we get related to the lack of quality or confusion generated
by your product.... We must have more ability to decide how our
system is presented to our end users. If we had a choice of another
supplier, based on your actions in this area, you would not be our
supplier of choice.")."

"Microsoft's primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous.
The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its
intellectual property as it wishes: "If intellectual property rights
have been lawfully acquired," it says, then "their subsequent
exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability." That is no more
correct than the proposition that use of one's personal property,
such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability."

"In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction
prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the
OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft's
market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate
justification. The restrictions therefore violate section 2 of the
Sherman Act."

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-12-13, David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

Peter wrote:


On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?

if I already had a browser.

Would most people?

most people buy a computer with the software already installed.
they could as easily buy an OS and a browser as buy an OS with a browser.

And, if not, doesn't that make it a rather 'necessary part' of the
product whether one can remove it or not? And if you were making an O.S.
would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update mechanism,
hoping they make mods as you need them, on time, bug free, rather than
whatever they might determine is 'more important' to their own product
schedule? Or would you feel that important enough a feature to be 'a
necessary part' of your O.S., written and maintained by your own people?

There's no need for the browser to be part of the critical update mechanism.

But then, back to the other side, if you believe it isn't necessary you
just pooh pooh the notion and argue anyone's browser would work just fine
if they didn't 'intentionally' make their dumb update mechanism odd ball
(and you'd believe it).

Debian's update mechanism works fine without a browser.

And we could go on and on, back and forth, in the same manner because
there's always "a way to do it," depending on your opinion of what an O.S.
product "should be" and what's "just as good" or "acceptable."

But then browsers don't all work 'exactly' the same, do they? and when the
user has a problem with your "Internet Ready" O.S., and automatic updates,
who do they call for support? Who do they blame? What's broke? Who fixes it?

say what?

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-12-13, Gary H <g.h@sympatico.ca> wrote:

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is
not permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way*
you guys want to do it. We *do* have environmental protection
rules up this way, and where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as
well. Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from
it's appointed rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.

pack ice?

Bye.
Jasen

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Many people upgrade the hardware and then update the operating
system.

No, they do not. Most people replace the computer if they need a
faster one. Many people keep the same computer for years without any
changes. They usually keep it until it fails, then they replace it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

Liar troll

Please, no more of your self analysis.

David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:



John Doe wrote:


David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:



John Doe wrote:



David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:




Peter wrote:




In article <Xns972A1585DB375follydom 207.115.17.102>,
jdoe usenet.love.invalid says...


An operating system should not have applications as it's
components if you want to promote competition among software
developers. And if you pretend to not know the difference
between an operating system and an application, you are just a
liar. There is a gray area but it's not that difficult to
generally separate an operating system from applications.



But wasn't a major part of the court process centred around
determining whether IE was or was not a necessary part of the
O/S? Weren't Microsoft claiming that it was and, if removed,
then the O/S would not work as 'advertised'? Isn't that one of
the major reasons why the case dragged on for so long? One set
of experts trying to prove that IE was NOT a necessary
component.

Didn't some group or groups actually manage to remove IE
completely and still have Windows work? Wasn't that a major
factor in disproving M$'s claims? In other words, it wasn't
just a simple case of showing that and O/S should not have
applications as it's components, it was far more complicated
than that at the time.

It was some time ago so may 'facts' may be somewhat of the mark.




Take the example of removing I.E.. If you want to conclude it
isn't 'necessary' to the O.S. then you simply argue


David Maynard simply argues. The rest of us simply jog our memory
to a time when Internet Explorer was an add-on component to
Windows.

David Maynard is old enough and technically inclined enough to
know better.

To imagine that an Internet browser is a necessary part of a
personal computer operating system is to suggest that a personal
computer cannot run the myriad of extremely valuable programs it
in fact ran before Microsoft bound Internet explorer to Windows.

John Doe is apparently unable to comprehend that the world changes
and what were acceptable products in the past no longer are, just
as the previously popular cars with hand crank starters no longer
are.


The main reason Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into Windows
was to crush the Navigator/Java threat.

That's certainly your opinion but what makes you think your mind reading
skills work any better on Bill Gates than they do on me?



On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?


Corporations or any entity that wants its subordinate(s) to use
the computer but not use an Internet browser would buy an
operating system with no browser.

Now show me any significant number who actually practice that
novel theory.


Step out of your closet and take off your blinders.

In other words you can't support the theory.



A really good example IMO would be a parent who wants their kid
to have access to the ever increasing universe of information on
the Internet but wants a browser specifically programmed/tailored
to help keep the kid from stumbling on all of the garbage.

Which is still an O.S. with a browser.


Which could better be included by OEMs

I've already explained why an O.S. supplier would want to control things
like critical updates and other O.S. functions.


or installed by those of us
who don't need everything preinstalled.

Feel free to install anything you like, just as you've always been able to.


The rest of us might buy an operating system preinstalled with a
browser of choice.

It has always been possible to get any browser at all
preinstalled, or add one.


I guess you've never experienced the problems an integrated Internet
Explorer can cause in Windows. Some of us enjoy having only the
programs we need.

You're right, I haven't experienced any problems.


Long gone are the days I tried to keep up with the ever increasing
garbage Microsoft dumped onto my hard drive with each new version of
Windows. It's like living on a landfill.

Then don't use Windows.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:


John Doe wrote:


David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:



John Doe wrote:



David Maynard <nospam private.net> wrote:




John Doe wrote:




Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:





John Doe writes:





The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as
has been explained many times before, is because of network
effects and a positive feedback loop.

If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of
anything that Microsoft has done.


All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to
steal it.

ROTFLOL


Just a troll.

Which, even if true, doesn't alter the fact that your post was
one of the most hilarious things I've seen in a long time,


Or maybe it's the hard drugs you are using.

Now you've descended into witless name calling, not that it was
all that grand a descent from where you started.


My name calling should flatter you. Obviously you will say anything
not no matter how frivolous, in an attempt to win an argument. Any
technical advice you give should be verified by the reader with
someone who can be trusted.

Well, at least you're consistently loony.

Message-ID: <11mm0ukht2piv15 corp.supernews.com

David Maynard wrote:
"The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving
their browser away..."

David Maynard conveniently forgets his own writing less than 24
hours old.

Assuming David Maynard's claim is true (is anything he says fact
and not just agreement with his personal opinion?) about
Netscape giving Navigator away is true, it is no different than
allowing pirates to steal Windows and later putting the squeeze
on us (think Windows Product Activation WPA).


Microsoft never did such a thing. Netscape did.

How's that for a 'difference', eh?


I think you have it backwards.

Then you'd be wrong.


Netscape began giving navigator away
after Microsoft began pushing navigator out of the market.

That's when they returned to giving it away.

Netscape began life as Mosaic Communications Corp in April 1994
and took on the name Netscape in November of the same year.

Read and weep http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/newsrelease1.html


You provided a citation. I am impressed.

First sane thing you've said.

That loss was approximately 17% of Netscape's income.

After they wiped out the competition and acquired a dominate
position, yes.


Which doesn't mean anything by itself. If Netscape were
overcharging, Microsoft would have been able to gain market share
without illegally using its Windows monopoly.

I didn't make any comment at all about what would be a 'fair', or 'unfair'
price.

 

[Gary H]

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.






Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head virtually
every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger international
and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north American
continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes sky-high
because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the wintertime
the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of demand and gas
drops. The immediate response or belief drilled into the general
public is that there is a shortage of oil. There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.




Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough
to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the state
of the world's oil supply.



Overly simplistic bullshit.


Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet


Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.


You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..


But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is building
extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the
industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.




They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't
get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every
technologically feasible source of new energy production.



Again, overly simplistic bullshit.


Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these bastards are driving the crap
out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting a
friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.




Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a
bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every other
means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever local
supplies have been pre stocked.



Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys
want to do it.


Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?

Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand
miles of Tundra. Do you know what that is? I doubt it. Why
let factual information get in the way. You cannot bury pipe in
perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface, migration paths for
caribou and other migratory species *must* be considered. The
route chosen by our government, which would have addressed all
those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for
administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build
it. So, screw ya, do without it.

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where we
have them, we apply them.


Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.

Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd
of thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

<snip, bullshit>

 

[David Maynard]

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.

Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head virtually
every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger international
and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil. There
is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.

Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough
to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the
state of the world's oil supply.

Overly simplistic bullshit.

Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed
logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet

Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.

You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..

But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is building
extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the
industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.


They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't
get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every
technologically feasible source of new energy production.

Again, overly simplistic bullshit.

Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these bastards are driving the crap
out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting a
friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.


Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a
bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every
other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever
local supplies have been pre stocked.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys
want to do it.

Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?


Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles of
Tundra. Do you know what that is?

Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell you're
located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual
information get in the way. You cannot bury pipe in perma-frost. Also,
when run on the surface, migration paths for caribou and other migratory
species *must* be considered. The route chosen by our government, which
would have addressed all those concerns was too costly and too much
trouble for administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't
build it. So, screw ya, do without it.

Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on someone else.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you folks
build it your own blessed selves?

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where
we have them, we apply them.



Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.


Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.

And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.

snip, bullshit

 

[Gary H]

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft,
not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.


Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head virtually
every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil. There
is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.


Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about
the state of the world's oil supply.


Overly simplistic bullshit.


Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed
logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet


Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.


You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..


But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is building
extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the
industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.



They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.


Again, overly simplistic bullshit.


Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these bastards are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting a
friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.



Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build
a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every
other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever
local supplies have been pre stocked.


Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys
want to do it.


Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?



Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles of
Tundra. Do you know what that is?


Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell you're
located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You cannot
bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface, migration
paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be considered.
The route chosen by our government, which would have addressed all
those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for administrators
of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build it. So, screw ya, do
without it.


Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on someone
else.

Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no
blame being placed on anyone.
It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are
whining, because they can't get their own way in implementing a
pipeline from Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada
(that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about
f**king up some other country's environment like they've done
with their own. Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget
it. Don't you think the US would do the same if things were
reversed??

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?

Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our
country. I suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest
moves yet today. You *do* understand that Canada is not part of
the US I assume?

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have
no reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any
more. Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you
that a number of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US
State and Canada *happens* to be in the way.

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where
we have them, we apply them.




Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.

Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the
costs come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock
Exchange and Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be
that dumb and unaware of the world around you. Haven't you
noticed statements like "The price of oil for delivery in
February will be ....", for example or, the price of oil was up
on the NYSE today due to "profit taking" (like that excuses it).
How in the hell does anyone *know* what the situation is
gonna be in February? Nobody knows what it will be like next
friggin' week for chrissake.

Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.


Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.

Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times
already. Why do you always have to try and read in something
that is not there? Really don't feel too secure in your
argument or what??

And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.

Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk.
Find another angle, this one is wearing thin.

snip, bullshit

 

[Ken Layton]

It's the same tired, old, and very illegal pyramid scheme.

 

[John Doe]

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

John Doe writes:

Many people upgrade the hardware and then update the operating
system.

No, they do not. Most people replace the computer if they need a
faster one. Many people keep the same computer for years without
any changes. They usually keep it until it fails, then they
replace it.

I said "many". Whether or not most do is probably unmeasured.

Once again, you leave me wondering why you are hanging out in the
homebuilt PC group. To ask questions and shill for Microsoft I
guess.

 

[Mxsmanic]

John Doe writes:

Once again, you leave me wondering why you are hanging out in the
homebuilt PC group.

I'm running two computers that I built myself.

To ask questions and shill for Microsoft I guess.

Don't guess.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[David Maynard]

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless
Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.



Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head
virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil. There
is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.



Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing about
the state of the world's oil supply.



Overly simplistic bullshit.



Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally flawed
logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet



Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.



You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll
get their money now, while the gettin' is good..



But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is
building extra refining capacity. Especially those who *control*
the industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.




They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.



Again, overly simplistic bullshit.



Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these bastards are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting
a friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.




Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build
a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every
other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever
local supplies have been pre stocked.



Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you
guys want to do it.



Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?




Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles
of Tundra. Do you know what that is?



Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell you're
located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You cannot
bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface, migration
paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be considered.
The route chosen by our government, which would have addressed all
those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for administrators
of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build it. So, screw ya, do
without it.



Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on someone
else.


Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no blame
being placed on anyone.

Why is it that some people think that denying what they do in the very next
sentence is a 'logical' argument?

It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are whining,
because they can't get their own way in implementing a pipeline from
Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada (that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about f**king up
some other country's environment like they've done with their own.
Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget it. Don't you think the
US would do the same if things were reversed??

I've already seen how it can bes done cooperatively and with extensive
environmental 'considerations', as you call it, with the existing Alyeska
pipeline so your claims do not jibe with reality.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?


Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our country. I
suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest moves yet today.
You *do* understand that Canada is not part of the US I assume?

When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the other
and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have no
reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any more.
Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you that a number
of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US State and Canada
*happens* to be in the way.

Thanks for being a good neighbor.

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and where
we have them, we apply them.





Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.


Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the costs
come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock Exchange and
Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be that dumb and unaware of
the world around you. Haven't you noticed statements like "The price of
oil for delivery in February will be ....", for example or, the price of
oil was up on the NYSE today due to "profit taking" (like that excuses
it). How in the hell does anyone *know* what the situation is gonna be
in February? Nobody knows what it will be like next friggin' week for
chrissake.

Supply and demand.

Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.


Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times already.
Why do you always have to try and read in something that is not there?
Really don't feel too secure in your argument or what??

Just that I understand supply and demand in a world market.

And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.


Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk. Find
another angle, this one is wearing thin.

Well, yes, your insistence on using it is getting rather old.

 

[Gary H]

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless
Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.




Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per
Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the
control factor. The desire for absolute power and to corrupt
absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly head
virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron, Hollinger
international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in the
wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because of
demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief drilled
into the general public is that there is a shortage of oil.
There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.




Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing
about the state of the world's oil supply.




Overly simplistic bullshit.




Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally
flawed logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet




Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.




You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure
they'll get their money now, while the gettin' is good..




But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is
building extra refining capacity. Especially those who
*control* the industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.





They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.




Again, overly simplistic bullshit.




Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these bastards are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting
a friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the continent.





Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them
build a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in
every other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with
whatever local supplies have been pre stocked.




Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you
guys want to do it.




Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?





Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles
of Tundra. Do you know what that is?




Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell
you're located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You
cannot bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface,
migration paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be
considered. The route chosen by our government, which would have
addressed all those concerns was too costly and too much trouble for
administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build it.
So, screw ya, do without it.




Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on
someone else.



Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no blame
being placed on anyone.


Why is it that some people think that denying what they do in the very
next sentence is a 'logical' argument?

I really think you need to not only learn to read, but learn to
understand what you read. What is written below is a
*statement* not a *blame*. You're definitely mistaking me for
someone who gives a shit as to whether or not the oil gets south
of the border.

It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are whining,
because they can't get their own way in implementing a pipeline from
Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada (that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about f**king
up some other country's environment like they've done with their own.
Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget it. Don't you think the
US would do the same if things were reversed??


I've already seen how it can bes done cooperatively and with extensive
environmental 'considerations', as you call it, with the existing
Alyeska pipeline so your claims do not jibe with reality.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?



Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our country. I
suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest moves yet today.
You *do* understand that Canada is not part of the US I assume?


When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the
other and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.

Man, you can't play ball with Goliath when he's continually
shoving the bat up your ass.

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have no
reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any more.
Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you that a
number of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US State and
Canada *happens* to be in the way.


Thanks for being a good neighbor.

Good neighbor? If "good neighbor" is defined by giving up your
right to implement your own rules in your own country in what
you perceive as being the best and least destructive, Then I say
f**k it, be a lousy neighbor. Don't see much "good neighbor"
coming north from your neck of the woods, except when it serves
"American interests". Takes 2 to tango mister.

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.






Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.



Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the costs
come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock Exchange and
Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be that dumb and unaware
of the world around you. Haven't you noticed statements like "The
price of oil for delivery in February will be ....", for example or,
the price of oil was up on the NYSE today due to "profit taking" (like
that excuses it). How in the hell does anyone *know* what the
situation is gonna be in February? Nobody knows what it will be like
next friggin' week for chrissake.


Supply and demand.

Supply and shit, we're talking months into the future. Supply
*and* demand is what happens in the present.

Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.


Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.



Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times already.
Why do you always have to try and read in something that is not
there? Really don't feel too secure in your argument or what??


Just that I understand supply and demand in a world market.

WooHoo. From this thread and others I get the impression you
think you understand a lot about everything. I would argue the
point. But???

And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.

I say GREED. Do you need a definition? What could that
possibly have to do with "conspiracy and paranoia". Man, you
make absolutely no sense sometimes. I notice it normally occurs
"argument legs" get really wobbly.

Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk. Find
another angle, this one is wearing thin.


Well, yes, your insistence on using it is getting rather old.

Really dumb statement. I guess enough is enough. Later