UK Retailers' fraudulent "Recommends Windows" scam is over
Homer
noting that adverts on radio, television and print needed to be clearly
labelled as such in the UK, and are not allowed to be disguised to look
like impartial recommendations. If it's paid commercial advertising, it
must say so. Period. That's the Advertising Standards Authority's rule,
and indeed the law in the UK - The Control of Misleading Advertisements
Regulations 1988, and the CAP Code:
[quote]
23.2 Marketers and publishers should make clear that advertisement
features are advertisements, for example by heading them "advertisement
feature".
[/quote]
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/cap_code/ShowCode.htm?clause_id=1564
UK readers are very familiar with this, as they'll have noticed various
pages in newspapers clearly labelled "ADVERTISEMENT" for years now, but
some of our transatlantic friends here in COLA seemed rather shocked by
the revelation, since apparently US regulations for deceptive promotion
are somewhat lacking (Section 5 of the FTC Act doesn't require explicit
designation of advertising).
My interest was, and still is, in exposing this scam where PC retailers
"Recommend Windows". In fact, those seemingly impartial recommendations
are nothing but commercial advertisements paid for by Microsoft, and as
such need to be labelled clearly as adverts, so visitors to those sites
understand explicitly that this is not an impartial "recommendation" at
all. At which point, of course, the deceitful purpose of these ads will
be completely exposed, and they'll most probably be withdrawn, bringing
competing systems like GNU/Linux one small step closer towards parity.
That is my hope.
http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/3696427ef964224e/98e1c281471b1032
But there was just one small problem. The ASA's authority didn't extend
to Web sites...
Until now:
[quote]
Stricter rules for internet adverts
Companies who advertise on the internet will face stricter rules and
regulations from next month.
Until now, The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has only been able
to monitor traditional advertising found on billboards, in newspapers or
on television.
But from March 1, its powers will extend to regulating commercial
websites and businesses who promote their products using social
networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
Under the change, internet users will be able to make official
objections about any indecent or misleading information they find
online.
The ASA has spent a year preparing for the reform, and is expanding
staff numbers by 10% to deal with the extra complaints it expects.
"The principle that ads have to be legal, decent, honest and truthful is
now going to extend to companies claims on their own websites," Matt
Wilson, of the ASA told the BBC.
Both adverts and claims on a company's website which could be
interpreted as marketing will be policed by the authority.
Last year, 2,500 people complained about website content, but under the
old rules their objections were not admissible.
[/quote]
I'm drafting my formal complaint right now. In fact, I'm thinking about
organising a petition at "petitiononline" to lend further weight to it.
I'll let you know when it's up and running.
--
K. | "MS is working fast and furious
http://slated.org | on security." ~ DFS, June 2004
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 50 days | http://tinyurl.com/doofygoofs1
DFS
> My interest was, and still is, in exposing this scam where PC retailers
> "Recommend Windows". In fact, those seemingly impartial recommendations
> are nothing but commercial advertisements paid for by Microsoft, and as
> such need to be labelled clearly as adverts, so visitors to those sites
> understand explicitly that this is not an impartial "recommendation" at
> all. At which point, of course, the deceitful purpose of these ads will
> be completely exposed, and they'll most probably be withdrawn, bringing
> competing systems like GNU/Linux one small step closer towards parity.
>
> That is my hope.
Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
While you're out there saving the world from Microsoft, maybe you could
actually do something honorable and bring down yourself and your whole
pack of self-serving, exploitative shits who invaded Nigeria and
polluted their natural resources and forced proprietary, patented
systems on them... at the very least you could return every "very
well-paid" cent you took in your reckless disregard for the people of
Nigeria.
I doubt the Nigerian courts will stand by and let you drool your
standard disclaimer: "My employer told me to do it!" Which is exactly
what Nazi soldiers said at the Nuremberg Trials.
Hey, you could also quit financing the fortunes of tobacco companies,
who peddle poisonous products which kill millions each year.
And you have the nerve to whine about Microsoft?
Spicerun
>
> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
DFS, Provide Proof!
"We'll be waiting for proof and details...".
Now what are you gonna do, Dumb Fscking Slut?
>
> While you're out there saving the world from Microsoft, maybe you could
> actually do something honorable and bring down yourself and your whole
> pack of self-serving, exploitative shits who invaded Nigeria and
> polluted their natural resources and forced proprietary, patented
> systems on them... at the very least you could return every "very
> well-paid" cent you took in your reckless disregard for the people of
> Nigeria.
Seriously? You're latching onto Nigeria, home of the online scams? What credibility you hold. NOT!
> Drivel snipped.....
>
> And you have the nerve to whine about Microsoft?
whining has never stopped you before!
FUCK OFF WINTROLL!
peterwn
>
> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>
Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
It would almost be certain that the likes of Dell spout out these
slogans through clenched teeth. I am sure hardware suppliers would
love to see Microsoft's monopoly broken as dell has tried to do now
and again.
Snit
29fb1681-65c6-4598...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 2/12/11
8:44 PM:
> On Feb 13, 12:57 pm, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>>
> Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
Right: the OEMs are paid by MS to sell Windows. Sure, MS loses money on
every transaction, but they make it up in volume. Linux does not pay OEMs
so they cannot compete.
Wait.
That makes no sense. MS cannot undercut *free*, even if they have kickbacks
or whatever.
> It would almost be certain that the likes of Dell spout out these
> slogans through clenched teeth. I am sure hardware suppliers would
> love to see Microsoft's monopoly broken as dell has tried to do now
> and again.
But until or unless there is an alternative they can sell that people will
buy, they are sorta stuck.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
peterwn
> peterwn stated in post
> 29fb1681-65c6-4598-a729-4b575213d...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 2/12/11
> 8:44 PM:
>
> > On Feb 13, 12:57 pm, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
> >> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
> >> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
> >> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>
> > Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
> > Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
> > 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
> > Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>
> Right: the OEMs are paid by MS to sell Windows. Sure, MS loses money on
> every transaction, but they make it up in volume. Linux does not pay OEMs
> so they cannot compete.
>
> Wait.
>
> That makes no sense. MS cannot undercut *free*, even if they have kickbacks
> or whatever.
>
high price for copies of OEM Windows sold. This more than covers the
cost of supplying Windows. However Microsoft also gives 'cash back'
refunds to the OEM supply chain which when paid still leaves some
profit margin for Microsoft. These 'refunds' are granted on the
understandings such that licences for ALL machines manufactured
(including those intended for other OS's) are purchased, putting
slogans into advertising such as "Dell recommends Windows x", etc,
etc. These payments are entirely discretionary on Microsoft's part
meaning that OEM's cannot sue for them if for any reason they are not
forthcoming.
Such payments are also likely to be made via Ireland so they are taxed
at Ireland's low business rate thus effectively cheating IRS, IRD(NZ),
ATO, HMRC etc.
Actually the time has come where Microsoft should be paying OEM's for
the privilege of having the more limited editions of Windows installed
on their computers.
flatfish+++
> Actually the time has come where Microsoft should be paying OEM's for
> the privilege of having the more limited editions of Windows installed
> on their computers.
Why?
They can always install Linux if they are not happy with Microsoft's
licensing conditions.
Homer
> On Feb 13, 12:57 pm, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite
No it isn't true that I'm a hypocrite. I told you before DooFuS, put up
or shut up. What exactly did I or the vessel I worked on "pollute"? And
what "proprietary, patented systems" did I "force" on them?
You're a pathological liar, DooFuS.
>> that those retailers might be paying Microsoft to use that phrase,
>> along with the phrase "Windows. Life Without Walls."? Now what are
>> you gonna do?
Expose your denialism and feigned ignorance yet again, of course:
[quote]
System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate Program
The Local OEM Incentives Program*—formerly the OEM Cooperative Marketing
Fund Program (Co-op)—is a cash rebate and co-marketing reimbursement
program designed to help you promote Microsoft products. The System
Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate Program are
available as part of the Local OEM Incentives Program for System
Builders.
[/quote]
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/community/mpn/pages/local_OEM_incentives.aspx
Apparently, "The Local OEM Incentives Program is not available in the
United States."
However, this replacement programme is:
[quote]
Microsoft Partner Incentives
Drive revenue. Expand your customer base. Improve cash flow. Compete
more effectively. All are possible when you take advantage of Microsoft
partner incentives, which represent a significant part of the annual
investment Microsoft makes in its partners. If your business focuses on
one of the following strategic activities and solution areas, you could
be eligible to earn incentives.
[/quote]
https://partner.microsoft.com/global/program/competencies/40142578
Which included:
[quote]
Objective
The new Solution Incentives reward partners for driving sales of
specific Microsoft solutions, chosen for their growth and market
potential. The program creates opportunities for partners to build new
sustainable revenue streams and increase their value to customers.
...
Windows 7 Solution Incentives
The Windows 7 incentives reward partners for driving sales of specific
solutions.
Partners can begin registering opportunities today. Partners in most
regions outside the US may register eligible deals for opportunities
created after July 5, 2010.
The Windows 7 Solutions Incentive pilots, run in several countries, have
concluded, and are replaced by this program.
...
Partner Benefits
Microsoft is introducing a rich set of financial rewards that:
...
Reward activities that drive revenue and customer value across the
sales cycle
...
How are partners paid?
Incentives will be calculated for all claims within the fiscal quarter
and paid out 45 days after end of month in which transaction occurred by
means of electronic funds transfers (EFT). Eligible partners will
receive their first payment in March 2011, upon CHIP implementation.
[/quote]
https://partner.microsoft.com/download/global/40156184
> Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
Yes, as noted above, Microsoft has an entire subdomain dedicated to
doing just that. I'm "surprised" DooFy missed it.
7
That is a welcome relief.
There is a whole bunch of misleading adverts out there.
Thanks for letting us know - I intend to use it fully.
I also wonder if it can be extends to trolling and ad-hominen personal
attacks funded through big corporate accounts like Appil/Micoshaft for the
explicit purpose of perceived commercial gain by these companies
and their marketing departments. Corporate decency will not return
until the laws are changed to address these violators.
Clogwog
bericht news:M2O5p.11931$To7....@newsfe12.ams2...
<bitchslap>
"7" the fscking scumbag liar who claimed to be the "European Inventor of the
Year" which is total bullshit.
http://www.leitl.org/sci.nano/1489.html
*------------------| EUROPEAN INVENTOR OF THE YEAR 1995 |----------------*
> Joseph Michael * Robodyne Cybernetics Ltd |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Inventor_of_the_Year
The first European Inventor of the Year awards took place at the
AutoWorld Museum in Brussels on 3 May 2006.
Untill you admit you were lying back then, anything you say, 7, is suspected
to be a lie.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
a729-4b5...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, peterwn wrote:
> It is well known that Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of
> advertising through the 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply
> channels for ensuring Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are
> used.
Intel do a similar thing by paying for that “Intel Inside” logo to appear on
PC ads.
7
Why do dishonest Amrikaaan companies like Appil and Micoshaft pay Amrikaans
to troll and post ad-hominem personal attacks on the internet?
Has anyone in these companies got a degree in honesty?
If so prove it.
If not, are you expecting to ride on the back of good faith of the
international community to not criticise amrikaas dumbest criminals posting
trolls and ad-hominen personal attacks funded by amrikkkaan companies
like micoshaft and appil? Are they above the law? I don't think so. Its
time for prosecutors to move in and arrest a few of the criminals funding
asstroturfers hiding behind dishonest corporations like appil and micoshaft
who sponsor ad hominem personal attacks and abuse in the internet
in blantant disregard for law.
A few wikileaks to open up scrutiny of the funding routes and who's who in
the chain of command could be a starting point.
Clogwog
bericht news:owP5p.18743$ud6....@newsfe19.ams2...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
7
Just read something interesting:
The code of conduct applies now also to advertorials.
An advertorial is a product that is controlled by the
the marketer and not the publisher.
So doofinut and flatcake nym operators and fellow asstroturfers are the
publishers while the marketer is micoshaft/appil.
In the UK, the marketer, appil/micoshaft, is liable for everything
the publisher doofinut / flatcake and asstroturfer in their publishing
cubicles print out.
The whole point about the practice of advertorials was that they could
disconnect the marketer from the publisher - but the link is now
re-established so there is no cop out routes for marketing departments that
use cubicle bound asstroturfers to push marketing material to unsuspecting
public.
7
flatfish+++
> No it isn't true that I'm a hypocrite. I told you before DooFuS, put up
> or shut up. What exactly did I or the vessel I worked on "pollute"? And
> what "proprietary, patented systems" did I "force" on them?
You did it willingly which is even worse.
You could have taken a job using FOSS.
> You're a pathological liar, DooFuS.
And you're a paranoid nut, [Homer].
> Expose your denialism and feigned ignorance yet again, of course:
>
> [quote]
> System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate Program
>
> The Local OEM Incentives Program*嚙碼formerly the OEM Cooperative Marketing
> Fund Program (Co-op)嚙碼is a cash rebate and co-marketing reimbursement
> program designed to help you promote Microsoft products. The System
You obviously have zero clue how the business world works.
Are you boycotting Coca Cola because they typically give a free fridge
to new grocery stores that open up?
Are you going to sue them because they stipulate that Pepsi and other
competition products are not allowed to be displayed in the Coke case?
Are you going to sue Barnes and Noble for charging publishers an aextra
amount for displaying their books on end caps?
How about the car manufacturers?
Why not boycott / sue them for offering incentives to dealers to
purchase parts and cars?
How about IBM that great Linux foghorn and supporter?
They wrote the book on how to package a deal via incentive programs.
and so forth.
You Linux loons are so sheltered in your cubicles or flipping burgers
that you have no clue what the real business world is like.
You display your ignorance constantly.
flatfish+++
So does AMD.
One of the family laptops has an AMD sticker on the palm rest.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Feb 13, 5:19?pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> peterwn stated in post
>> 29fb1681-65c6-4598-a729-4b575213d...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 2/12/11
>> 8:44 PM:
>>
>> > On Feb 13, 12:57?pm, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>> >> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>> >> Without Walls."? ?Now what are you gonna do?
>>
>> > Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
>> > Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>> > 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>> > Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>>
>> Right: the OEMs are paid by MS to sell Windows. ?Sure, MS loses money on
>> every transaction, but they make it up in volume. ?Linux does not pay OEMs
>> so they cannot compete.
>>
>> Wait.
>>
>> That makes no sense. ?MS cannot undercut *free*, even if they have kickbacks
>> or whatever.
Such logic! Reread what you wrote, troll.
And it goes beyond that. Companies (not Microsoft) pay DELL to include their
bundleware.
In that light, yes, Linux is the costlier option.
> The situation as I understand it is Microsoft charges a comparatively
> high price for copies of OEM Windows sold. This more than covers the
> cost of supplying Windows. However Microsoft also gives 'cash back'
> refunds to the OEM supply chain which when paid still leaves some
> profit margin for Microsoft. These 'refunds' are granted on the
> understandings such that licences for ALL machines manufactured
> (including those intended for other OS's) are purchased, putting
> slogans into advertising such as "Dell recommends Windows x", etc,
> etc. These payments are entirely discretionary on Microsoft's part
> meaning that OEM's cannot sue for them if for any reason they are not
> forthcoming.
>
> Such payments are also likely to be made via Ireland so they are taxed
> at Ireland's low business rate thus effectively cheating IRS, IRD(NZ),
> ATO, HMRC etc.
>
> Actually the time has come where Microsoft should be paying OEM's for
> the privilege of having the more limited editions of Windows installed
> on their computers.
--
Grub first, then ethics.
-- Bertolt Brecht
Chris Ahlstrom
> Verily I say unto thee, that peterwn spake thusly:
>> On Feb 13, 12:57??pm, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite
>
> No it isn't true that I'm a hypocrite. I told you before DooFuS, put up
> or shut up. What exactly did I or the vessel I worked on "pollute"? And
> what "proprietary, patented systems" did I "force" on them?
>
> You're a pathological liar, DooFuS.
>
> <massive evidence snipped>
>
> Yes, as noted above, Microsoft has an entire subdomain dedicated to
> doing just that. I'm "surprised" DooFy missed it.
Why? You already keyed it:
> You're a pathological liar, DooFuS.
Not only that, he salts his lies with invective. A most unpleasant
fellow. Must have trained at Microsoft during the 1990's.
--
Sheriff Chameleotoptor sighed with an air of weary sadness, and then
turned to Doppelgutt and said 'The Senator must really have been on a
bender this time -- he left a party in Cleveland, Ohio, at 11:30 last
night, and they found his car this morning in the smokestack of a British
aircraft carrier in the Formosa Straits.'
-- Grand Panjandrum's Special Award, 1985 Bulwer-Lytton
bad fiction contest.
Snit
7ab11a11-59ec-4dce...@o14g2000prb.googlegroups.com on 2/12/11
10:29 PM:
No matter what the numbers are, though, if Dell and HP and others could sell
Linux boxes, they could make *more* money per box... they can have Linux for
free - they have to pay MS for Windows. Of course, the price of the OS is
not the full price... there is also the ability to entice third parties to
add software (crapware), the cost of support, and the number of sales. The
reality is if Dell dropped Windows today and only sold Linux systems, they
would be out of business in a very short time. People do not want Linux as
they want Windows.
And do not think Dell is not smart enough to figure out that even if MS
makes them pay for all of their "their" systems they could start a wholly
owned subsidiary that would sell only desktop Linux systems but still be the
same basic systems. I am sure there are other "tricks" that could be used
to get around any such postulated stipulations (none of which have been
shown to even exist).
> Actually the time has come where Microsoft should be paying OEM's for
> the privilege of having the more limited editions of Windows installed
> on their computers.
Why?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Ezekiel
>
>"DFS" wrote in message news:ij76q6$seh$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>On 2/12/2011 6:07 PM, Homer wrote:
>
>
>> My interest was, and still is, in exposing this scam where PC retailers
>> "Recommend Windows". In fact, those seemingly impartial recommendations
>> are nothing but commercial advertisements paid for by Microsoft, and as
>> such need to be labelled clearly as adverts, so visitors to those sites
>> understand explicitly that this is not an impartial "recommendation" at
>> all. At which point, of course, the deceitful purpose of these ads will
>> be completely exposed, and they'll most probably be withdrawn, bringing
>> competing systems like GNU/Linux one small step closer towards parity.
>>
>> That is my hope.
>
>
>Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying Microsoft
>to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life Without Walls."?
>Now what are you gonna do?
I'd be surprised if they were paying MS to advertise for them. It's possible
but not likely in my opinion.
Back to Homer's point - it's not clear what this "deceptive advertising" is
exactly. Are they going to crack down on sites that advertise the ability to
'grow hair on bald men', 'lose 20-lbs in 7 days' and 'improve your gas
mileage 20% with the Tornado' or things like "Dell recommends Windows."
I'm inclined to believe it's the former and not the later. Otherwise "Things
go better with Coke", "Choosy mothers choose JIF", "Breakfast of Champions"
and "We try harder" are all equally suspect.
flatfish+++
"We try harder, even though we fail", would be a good advertising
campaign for Linux!
DFS
> On Feb 13, 12:57 pm, DFS<nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>>
> Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
It's "well known" here in Linux idiot land, but that's it.
You have not a single shred of proof anything you just said.
> It would almost be certain that the likes of Dell spout out these
> slogans through clenched teeth. I am sure hardware suppliers would
> love to see Microsoft's monopoly broken as dell has tried to do now
> and again.
uh huh... you can tell how much OEMs hate recommending Windows by the
fact that it appears on most of their webpages, and in their print
mailings, etc.
And by the fact that even the smallest OEMs - that advertise in the back
pages of MaximumPC - preinstall only Windows.
Another peterwn fail post.
DFS
uh oh! Now [H]ypocrite [H]omer and other self-righteous cola assholes
can't buy Intel or AMD chips (both are obviously corrupt companies for
offering such "illegal kickbacks").
Back to their hand-held calculators... but wait, those have IP patents
... whatever will a cola freak do?!?!
bbgruff
> I'd be surprised if they were paying MS to advertise for them. It's
possible
> but not likely in my opinion.
>
> Back to Homer's point - it's not clear what this "deceptive advertising"
is
> exactly. Are they going to crack down on sites that advertise the ability
to
> 'grow hair on bald men', 'lose 20-lbs in 7 days' and 'improve your gas
> mileage 20% with the Tornado' or things like "Dell recommends Windows."
>
> I'm inclined to believe it's the former and not the later. Otherwise
"Things
> go better with Coke", "Choosy mothers choose JIF", "Breakfast of
Champions"
> and "We try harder" are all equally suspect.
Two separate things here.
I suspect that what the OP was about is a practice of making advertisements
look like news articles.
In the U.K., this used to be particularly the case with local papers, and
Estate Agents buying whole pages for an ad., and then making that page look
like an article in the newspaper. e.g. it would look like a report on a
wonderful new development, mention prices, suggest what a bargain these new
homes were, how desirable, etc.
It's been stamped on. Such articles must now clearly show a header of
*Advertisement*
The suggestion (from the OP) seems to be that similar regulations
might/should apply to on-line advertising. e.g. are Dell really
recommending Windows, or is "Dell recommends Windows" an ad., funded by MS,
in which case (and if what the O.P. says is true) there might be a move here
to label it "Advertisement".
Your own examples would, in the U.K., fall under a different heading.
Adverts are required by to be decent and true.
Nothing is done until there is a complaint. Then, if the complaint is
upheld, there can be a (large) fine, and generally the ad. is banned.
e.g. "We provide fast, cheap broadband" is OK.
Advertise "We provide the fastest and cheapest...." and you need to be
prepared to prove it :-)
flatfish+++
> On 2/13/2011 11:15 AM, flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:18:32 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<29fb1681-65c6-4598-
>>> a729-4b5...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, peterwn wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is well known that Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of
>>>> advertising through the 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply
>>>> channels for ensuring Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are
>>>> used.
>>>
>>> Intel do a similar thing by paying for that ļæ½Intel Insideļæ½ logo to appear on
>>> PC ads.
>>
>> So does AMD.
>> One of the family laptops has an AMD sticker on the palm rest.
>
>
> uh oh! Now [H]ypocrite [H]omer and other self-righteous cola assholes
> can't buy Intel or AMD chips (both are obviously corrupt companies for
> offering such "illegal kickbacks").
>
> Back to their hand-held calculators... but wait, those have IP patents
> ... whatever will a cola freak do?!?!
I like your suggestion.
Slit them lengthwise.....
DFS
>>
>>
>> "DFS" wrote in message news:ij76q6$seh$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 2/12/2011 6:07 PM, Homer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My interest was, and still is, in exposing this scam where PC retailers
>>> "Recommend Windows". In fact, those seemingly impartial recommendations
>>> are nothing but commercial advertisements paid for by Microsoft, and as
>>> such need to be labelled clearly as adverts, so visitors to those sites
>>> understand explicitly that this is not an impartial "recommendation" at
>>> all. At which point, of course, the deceitful purpose of these ads will
>>> be completely exposed, and they'll most probably be withdrawn, bringing
>>> competing systems like GNU/Linux one small step closer towards parity.
>>>
>>> That is my hope.
>>
>>
>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>
> I'd be surprised if they were paying MS to advertise for them. It's
> possible but not likely in my opinion.
I agree it's unlikely. But it's possible, and [H]ypocrite doesn't know
one way or the other.
> Back to Homer's point - it's not clear what this "deceptive advertising"
> is exactly. Are they going to crack down on sites that advertise the
> ability to 'grow hair on bald men', 'lose 20-lbs in 7 days' and 'improve
> your gas mileage 20% with the Tornado' or things like "Dell recommends
> Windows."
>
> I'm inclined to believe it's the former and not the later. Otherwise
> "Things go better with Coke", "Choosy mothers choose JIF", "Breakfast of
> Champions" and "We try harder" are all equally suspect.
"OEM recommends Windows"? What else are they going to recommend?
flatfish+++
> On 2/13/2011 1:26 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "DFS" wrote in message news:ij76q6$seh$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On 2/12/2011 6:07 PM, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My interest was, and still is, in exposing this scam where PC retailers
>>>> "Recommend Windows". In fact, those seemingly impartial recommendations
>>>> are nothing but commercial advertisements paid for by Microsoft, and as
>>>> such need to be labelled clearly as adverts, so visitors to those sites
>>>> understand explicitly that this is not an impartial "recommendation" at
>>>> all. At which point, of course, the deceitful purpose of these ads will
>>>> be completely exposed, and they'll most probably be withdrawn, bringing
>>>> competing systems like GNU/Linux one small step closer towards parity.
>>>>
>>>> That is my hope.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>>> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>>> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>>
>> I'd be surprised if they were paying MS to advertise for them. It's
>> possible but not likely in my opinion.
>
> I agree it's unlikely. But it's possible, and [H]ypocrite doesn't know
> one way or the other.
HPT was the inspiration of that song "Don't Know Much"
http://artists.letssingit.com/sam-cooke-lyrics-wonderful-world-wzxlmlw
>
>
>> Back to Homer's point - it's not clear what this "deceptive advertising"
>> is exactly. Are they going to crack down on sites that advertise the
>> ability to 'grow hair on bald men', 'lose 20-lbs in 7 days' and 'improve
>> your gas mileage 20% with the Tornado' or things like "Dell recommends
>> Windows."
>>
>> I'm inclined to believe it's the former and not the later. Otherwise
>> "Things go better with Coke", "Choosy mothers choose JIF", "Breakfast of
>> Champions" and "We try harder" are all equally suspect.
>
>
> "OEM recommends Windows"? What else are they going to recommend?
They "could" recommend Linux, but they would be out of business real
soon.
Homer
>
> I suspect that what the OP was about is a practice of making
> advertisements look like news articles.
Correct.
There's all sorts of deceptive advertising, and I'm not claiming to
support any of it, and neither does the ASA. In the case of Microsoft's
"channel" of resellers, the specific deception is presenting a paid
advertisement as though it were a voluntary, unilateral and impartial
recommendation. The fact that Microsoft pays for these "recommends"
adverts is not contested - their Incentives Programme (and previously
their Cooperative Marketing programme) is a well established fact. They
do it because they can, because until now there was little anyone could
do to stop them.
Well now (or from March, anyway) the same rules that currently apply to
print and broadcast media will also apply to the Web, and everyone
reading these "recommends" adverts will know the vendor doesn't really
"recommend" Windows at all, it's just being paid to say so, because the
vendor will be required by law to make it clear these are paid adverts.
Game over.
--
K. | "MS is working fast and furious
http://slated.org | on security." ~ DFS, June 2004
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 51 days | http://tinyurl.com/doofygoofs1
flatfish+++
> Game over.
You can say that again [Homer].
You and desktop Linux lost the competition years ago.
DFS
> Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
>>
>> I suspect that what the OP was about is a practice of making
>> advertisements look like news articles.
>
> Correct.
>
> There's all sorts of deceptive advertising, and I'm not claiming to
> support any of it, and neither does the ASA.
But you ONLY whine when Microsoft does it, [H]ypocrite.
> In the case of Microsoft's
> "channel" of resellers, the specific deception is presenting a paid
> advertisement as though it were a voluntary, unilateral and impartial
> recommendation.
That's exactly what it is. If it weren't voluntary, the OEM wouldn't
display it.
OEMs only sell what they sell voluntarily.
People and businesses only buy what they buy voluntarily.
How difficult is this for you?
> The fact that Microsoft pays for these "recommends"
> adverts is not contested - their Incentives Programme (and previously
> their Cooperative Marketing programme) is a well established fact.
I would imagine every large company has various sales incentives and
volume sales rebates and marketing programs and so on. But somehow it's
only a problem when MS does it.
In your eyes, Google is about as "evil" as it gets:
http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html
Then there's IBM promoting AMD chips:
"deliver unprecedented price performance..."
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/info/x/3755m3/index.html
Then there's the insider trading by an AMD employee:
http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-amd-secrets-leaked-by-inside-traders
Then there's AMD being sued for patent infringement:
http://www.itexaminer.com/amd-sued-by-bender.aspx
Then there's AMD being sued for causing birth defects:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/09/amd-sued-by-worker-whose-child-has-birth-defects/
uh oh... if you weren't a shameless, shit-sucking [H]orrific [H]ypocrite
you would never use Google or buy an IBM product or AMD chip again in
your life, and you would sell your existing computers that have AMD
chips in them, and you would rant and froth against Google and IBM and AMD.
But you won't. You're totally and completely laughable, [H]ypocrite.
> They
> do it because they can, because until now there was little anyone could
> do to stop them.
>
> Well now (or from March, anyway) the same rules that currently apply to
> print and broadcast media will also apply to the Web, and everyone
> reading these "recommends" adverts will know the vendor doesn't really
> "recommend" Windows at all, it's just being paid to say so, because the
> vendor will be required by law to make it clear these are paid adverts.
>
> Game over.
Is this the same "game over" you and a bunch of other frothing Linux
idiots said it was for Windows when the shitty Google ChromeOS came out?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On 2/12/2011 10:44 PM, peterwn wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 12:57 pm, DFS<nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>>> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>>> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>>>
>> Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>
> It's "well known" here in Linux idiot land, but that's it.
How does it feel to live in idiot land, sonny boy?
<http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/>
Chris Ahlstrom
The man is a nutty, out-of-touch, lying denialist if he claims not to know
that Microsoft provides marketing incentives to vendors. It's right on
Microsoft's own Partner's site!!!!
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/community/distributor/associate/Pages/rebates.aspx
OEM Associate Distributor Incentives Program
There's also one for outside of the US:
https://partner.microsoft.com/global/productssolutions/40045262
System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate Program
The Microsoft System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate
Program are available as part of the Local OEM Incentives Program for
System Builders.
*The Local OEM Incentives Program is not available in the United States.
I might make the case that DFS doesn't know much about Microsoft, yet he
shills for them relentlessly. How daft is that?
--
If an S and an I and an O and a U
With an X at the end spell Su;
And an E and a Y and an E spell I,
Pray what is a speller to do?
Then, if also an S and an I and a G
And an HED spell side,
There's nothing much left for a speller to do
But to go commit siouxeyesighed.
-- Charles Follen Adams, "An Orthographic Lament"
DFS
Wait a minute, bozo. peterwn said they were kickbacks to ensure Windows
is on 100% of the machines.
Your link proves neither.
kickbacks are illegal (and "kickbacks" implies illegality), and where in
the MS Co-Op Partner Guidebook does it mention they have to ship Windows
on 100% of machines?
http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/fy09_h1_guidebook.pdf
And to stuff it back down [H]ypocrite's idiot throat, where in the
handbook does it say the OEM participation is anything but voluntary?
So, this is just more "advocate" failure and bogus claims, as usual, for
the entire life of cola.
But I will give you credit for proving - again - that Roy Spamowitz is a
lying piece of shit:
"It begins with a message like this one (which we anonymised):
====================================================================
Hi [company name omitted]
Your company can get [amount omitted] in vouchers if you utilize
[proportion omitted] by [date omitted] on a preapproved offer and post
the final claim by [another date omitted]. I have enclosed details of
the promotion with this email, and am including information on how to
utilise coop as well.
It would be fantastic to see you qualify for the vouchers! Given the end
of life with Windows XP and the steady sales of Vista (GFK tracks that
over 89% of managed retailers are selling Vista PCs to consumers), it
would be great to put this towards a Vista sales incentive for your
staff or channel partners.
Included/Attached
· Terms and Conditions
· Quick Guide to running a COOP Customer Offer
Any questions, let me know.
Regards
[name of Microsoft employee omitted]
====================================================================
Spamowitz "anonymized" a genuine letter from Microsoft? Say it ain't so!
DFS
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> In message<ij9eiv$qle$3...@news.eternal-september.org>, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/2011 10:44 PM, peterwn wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 12:57 pm, DFS<nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>>>>> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>>>>> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>>>>>
>>>> Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
>>>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>>>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>>>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>>>
>>> It's "well known" here in Linux idiot land, but that's it.
>>
>> How does it feel to live in idiot land, sonny boy?
>>
>> <http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/>
>
> The man is a nutty, out-of-touch, lying denialist if he claims not to know
> that Microsoft provides marketing incentives to vendors. It's right on
> Microsoft's own Partner's site!!!!
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/community/distributor/associate/Pages/rebates.aspx
>
> OEM Associate Distributor Incentives Program
Of course they provide sales incentives. It's a mainstay of business
since before Christ.
What I'm denying is MS provides kickbacks to ensure Windows is on 100%
of machines (which is what the lying Linux idiot peterwn claimed).
> There's also one for outside of the US:
>
> https://partner.microsoft.com/global/productssolutions/40045262
>
> System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate Program
>
> The Microsoft System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate
> Program are available as part of the Local OEM Incentives Program for
> System Builders.
>
> *The Local OEM Incentives Program is not available in the United States.
>
> I might make the case that DFS doesn't know much about Microsoft, yet he
> shills for them relentlessly. How daft is that?
You can't even make a case for yourself, Linosuck.
cola idiots lose again.
Snit
2/13/11 4:55 PM:
Right: MS pays companies to sell Windows... hence why the sell Windows
instead of Linux (which is only free). If MS did not undercut the price of
Linux, everyone would be selling it.
Right?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Ezekiel
>news:ij9ps6$p7n$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Are you asking Schestowitz?
><http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/>
Techrights!!! - - - LOL!!! - - - - SPLORF!!!!!!
It's like saying "I can prove that Democrats are evil. Here's a link to Rush
Limbaugh's website."
SPLORF!!! Techrights. That's quite some "proof" you have there. A nutjob
website run by Schestowitz.
Homer
> I might make the case that DFS doesn't know much about Microsoft, yet
> he shills for them relentlessly. How daft is that?
Archetypal mindless fanboyism or right-wing bigotry, take your pick.
Chris Ahlstrom
Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites describing
their "incentives" programs.
--
The most delightful day after the one on which you buy a cottage in
the country is the one on which you resell it.
-- J. Brecheux
Ezekiel
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>news:ij9v4l$2ts$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>Ezekiel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>>"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote in message
>>>news:ij9ps6$p7n$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>
>>>In message <ij9eiv$qle$3...@news.eternal-september.org>, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/12/2011 10:44 PM, peterwn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
>>>>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>>>>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>>>>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>>>>
>>>> It's "well known" here in Linux idiot land, but that's it.
>>>
>>>How does it feel to live in idiot land, sonny boy?
>>
>> Are you asking Schestowitz?
>>
>>><http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/>
>>
>> Techrights!!! - - - LOL!!! - - - - SPLORF!!!!!!
>>
>> It's like saying "I can prove that Democrats are evil. Here's a link to
>> Rush
>> Limbaugh's website."
>>
>> SPLORF!!! Techrights. That's quite some "proof" you have there. A
>> nutjob
>> website run by Schestowitz.
>
>Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites describing
>their "incentives" programs.
Exactly which one of their websites or incentive programs confirms this
claim?
<quote>
Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
</quote>
A company offering incentives to their sellers/distributors isn't exactly a
smoking gun. I'm pretty sure it's been this way long before grandpa Gates
and grandpa Ballmer were ever born.
<quote>
It wasn't so long ago that beverage giants like Coke and Pepsi would
regularly reward their top bottlers (plants that actually make the product
as well as distribute it) and distributors (companies that warehouse the
finished goods and then distribute to retail) with lavish trips. Then there
were the merchandise programs that rewarded the distributor network with
high-end prizes.
While such sales incentives are still prevalent in both the liquor and beer
categories, the soft drink giants have decided to focus their dollars on
consumer promotions and advertising to spur sales by motivating consumers.
One of the main reasons soft drink sales incentives have gone out of style
is because of distribution channel consolidating, bringing many bottlers and
distributors under one roof. Both Coca-Cola Enterprises and the Pepsi
Bottling Group have gobbled up most of the independent companies— creating
two powerhouse networks. (Back in the day, the distribution pipeline was far
more fragmented and the need to get everybody "in the program" via sales
incentives was essential.)
That's not to say the beverage giants have abandoned incentive programs
altogether. Last year, PepsiCo's "First Strike" incentive program rewarded
bottlers and distributors with merchandise and travel for achieving sales
goals during the revival of the "Pepsi Challenge."
</quote>
flatfish+++
> On 2/13/2011 6:55 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> In message<ij9eiv$qle$3...@news.eternal-september.org>, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/12/2011 10:44 PM, peterwn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 12:57 pm, DFS<nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it true, [H]ypocrite, that those retailers might be paying
>>>>>> Microsoft to use that phrase, along with the phrase "Windows. Life
>>>>>> Without Walls."? Now what are you gonna do?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Stop talking through a hole in your hat. It is well known that
>>>>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>>>>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>>>>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>>>>
>>>> It's "well known" here in Linux idiot land, but that's it.
>>>
>>> How does it feel to live in idiot land, sonny boy?
>>>
>>> <http://techrights.org/2008/12/01/leaked-oem-vista-ad-incentives/>
>>
>> The man is a nutty, out-of-touch, lying denialist if he claims not to know
>> that Microsoft provides marketing incentives to vendors. It's right on
>> Microsoft's own Partner's site!!!!
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/community/distributor/associate/Pages/rebates.aspx
>>
>> OEM Associate Distributor Incentives Program
>
>
> Of course they provide sales incentives. It's a mainstay of business
> since before Christ.
Exactly!
These guys need to get out of the basement and into the real world once
in a while.
> What I'm denying is MS provides kickbacks to ensure Windows is on 100%
> of machines (which is what the lying Linux idiot peterwn claimed).
Anything is possible, but I doubt it.
And until some concrete proof is presented I have to believe it is yet
another false claim made by the Linux community.
>
>
>
>> There's also one for outside of the US:
>>
>> https://partner.microsoft.com/global/productssolutions/40045262
>>
>> System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate Program
>>
>> The Microsoft System Builder Incentives Program and System Builder Rebate
>> Program are available as part of the Local OEM Incentives Program for
>> System Builders.
>>
>> *The Local OEM Incentives Program is not available in the United States.
>>
>> I might make the case that DFS doesn't know much about Microsoft, yet he
>> shills for them relentlessly. How daft is that?
>
> You can't even make a case for yourself, Linosuck.
>
> cola idiots lose again.
Don't they always?
They are twitching and frothing more than ever.
flatfish+++
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>
>> I might make the case that DFS doesn't know much about Microsoft, yet
>> he shills for them relentlessly. How daft is that?
>
> Archetypal mindless fanboyism or right-wing bigotry, take your pick.
Get the net.......
He's loose again.
flatfish+++
That place is like a Fellini circus.
The inmates are running the asylum.
Business incentives are offered all the time.
It's a part of doing business.
Something these Linux users don't seem to have any experience with.
Except Liarmutt.
He knows better but he's trying to save face and suck up to the others.
Homer
>> SPLORF!!! Techrights. That's quite some "proof" you have there. A
>> nutjob website run by Schestowitz.
>
> Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites
> describing their "incentives" programs.
The Microsoft apologists' denialism is simply astounding.
Chris Ahlstrom
>>"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>>news:ij9v4l$2ts$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites describing
>>their "incentives" programs.
>
> Exactly which one of their websites or incentive programs confirms this
> claim?
>
> <quote>
> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
> </quote>
>
> A company offering incentives to their sellers/distributors isn't exactly a
> smoking gun. I'm pretty sure it's been this way long before grandpa Gates
> and grandpa Ballmer were ever born.
You just don't get it, do you?
All sorts of business behavior becomes predatory, or unethical, when a
company has a *monopoly*.
These "incentives" constitute monopoly maintenance.
> <quote>
> It wasn't so long ago that beverage giants like Coke and Pepsi ...
> </quote>
Already knew about that. You did know that Code and Pepsi actually *share*
a market, didn't you?
--
Give all orders verbally. Never write anything down that might go into a
"Pearl Harbor File".
Ezekiel
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>
>Ezekiel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>>"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>>>news:ij9v4l$2ts$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites
>>>describing
>>>their "incentives" programs.
>>
>> Exactly which one of their websites or incentive programs confirms this
>> claim?
>>
>> <quote>
>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>> </quote>
>>
>> A company offering incentives to their sellers/distributors isn't exactly
>> a
>> smoking gun. I'm pretty sure it's been this way long before grandpa Gates
>> and grandpa Ballmer were ever born.
>
>You just don't get it, do you?
>
>All sorts of business behavior becomes predatory, or unethical, when a
>company has a *monopoly*.
>
>These "incentives" constitute monopoly maintenance.
You don't get it either, do you?
Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing. All the
complaining in COLA about 'they shouldn't give incentives' and 'they
shouldn't do this' and blah-blah-blah doesn't matter. Show which laws are
being violated by giving incentives which (I'm no lawyer) appears to be
perfectly legal.
Your *OPINION* of what they should or shouldn't do doesn't matter one bit.
What DOES matter is the law. Exactly which laws are being broken?
Chris Ahlstrom
Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet been
pushed through the system.
> All the
> complaining in COLA about 'they shouldn't give incentives' and 'they
> shouldn't do this' and blah-blah-blah doesn't matter. Show which laws are
> being violated by giving incentives which (I'm no lawyer) appears to be
> perfectly legal.
>
> Your *OPINION* of what they should or shouldn't do doesn't matter one bit.
Opinion, hell.
> What DOES matter is the law. Exactly which laws are being broken?
Unfortunately, the U.S. DOJ is pretty consistently out-maneuvered and
out-negotiated by Microsoft. And the kid-glove treatment by the Bush
administration put the capper on it.
Regardless of the legality, though, it should be clear that the only reason
for Microsoft (the *only* OS vendor in the consumer desktop PC market) to
pay marketing incentives for a product which by far most people see as the
*only* choice in operating systems is to prevent *any* alternative from
becoming a significant presence. Otherwise, why put money into it?
That Microsoft has found a loophole or lack in the law does not change that.
--
Alan Cox wrote:
>> On any procmail new enough not to be full of security holes you set
>Brain on, Imeant majordomo of course 8)
You got me worried there for a brief (very brief) moment :-).
-- Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless)
chrisv
> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>
>>>"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>>
>>>Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites describing
>>>their "incentives" programs.
>>
>> Exactly which one of their websites or incentive programs confirms this
>> claim?
>>
>> <quote>
>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>> </quote>
>>
>> A company offering incentives to their sellers/distributors isn't exactly a
>> smoking gun. I'm pretty sure it's been this way long before grandpa Gates
>> and grandpa Ballmer were ever born.
>
>You just don't get it, do you?
>
>All sorts of business behavior becomes predatory, or unethical, when a
>company has a *monopoly*.
>
>These "incentives" constitute monopoly maintenance.
>
>> <quote>
>> It wasn't so long ago that beverage giants like Coke and Pepsi ...
>> </quote>
>
>Already knew about that. You did know that Code and Pepsi actually *share*
>a market, didn't you?
One wonders how many times this needs to be explained to the trolling
fsckwit.
One-Shot , One-Kill
worthless piece of shit "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:45eil6pod5j40mka6...@4ax.com...
>
> One wonders how many times this needs to be explained to the trolling
> fsckwit.
>
another fine advocacy post from the dumbest turd in the septic tank.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a useless piece of shit.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
news:ijbdc9$oja$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
So it is legal. You just don't like the laws as currently written.
So do you expect companies to comply with what *you* think the laws should
be or should they comply with the laws as written?
>> All the
>> complaining in COLA about 'they shouldn't give incentives' and 'they
>> shouldn't do this' and blah-blah-blah doesn't matter. Show which laws are
>> being violated by giving incentives which (I'm no lawyer) appears to be
>> perfectly legal.
>>
>> Your *OPINION* of what they should or shouldn't do doesn't matter one
>> bit.
>
> Opinion, hell.
>
>> What DOES matter is the law. Exactly which laws are being broken?
>
> Unfortunately, the U.S. DOJ is pretty consistently out-maneuvered and
> out-negotiated by Microsoft. And the kid-glove treatment by the Bush
> administration put the capper on it.
> Regardless of the legality, though, it should be clear that the only
> reason
> for Microsoft (the *only* OS vendor in the consumer desktop PC market) to
> pay marketing incentives for a product which by far most people see as the
> *only* choice in operating systems is to prevent *any* alternative from
> becoming a significant presence. Otherwise, why put money into it?
Imagine that... a company spending money to "defend their turf." So if you
were running a company would it be your policy to just 'roll over and give
up' in the face of competition?
> That Microsoft has found a loophole or lack in the law does not change
> that.
You're from South Carolina and supposedly NASCAR is fairly popular around
those parts. As the old saying goes... "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't
tryin."
ALL of these companies, politicians, political organizations, etc know
exactly what the law is and they will push the boundaries of the laws in
order to take advantage of everything they can. It's wishful thinking to
believe otherwise.
chrisv
>>
>> Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing.
Just why do you think that M$ has been pulled into court for their
actions, fsckwit? Because they were alleged to be "not nice" or that
they had broken some laws?
DFS
> Unfortunately, the U.S. DOJ is pretty consistently out-maneuvered and
> out-negotiated by Microsoft. And the kid-glove treatment by the Bush
> administration put the capper on it.
Thank God, for your career's sake...
DFS
> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet been
> pushed through the system.
And you cola turds think you get to decide which laws are "bad" or not?
Get over your Windows-developing selves...
Snit
2/14/11 4:24 AM:
> Ezekiel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>>> news:ij9v4l$2ts$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites describing
>>> their "incentives" programs.
>>
>> Exactly which one of their websites or incentive programs confirms this
>> claim?
>>
>> <quote>
>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>> </quote>
>>
>> A company offering incentives to their sellers/distributors isn't exactly a
>> smoking gun. I'm pretty sure it's been this way long before grandpa Gates
>> and grandpa Ballmer were ever born.
>
> You just don't get it, do you?
>
> All sorts of business behavior becomes predatory, or unethical, when a
> company has a *monopoly*.
>
> These "incentives" constitute monopoly maintenance.
So now it should be, in your world, illegal to offer incentives? That is
absurd.
>> <quote>
>> It wasn't so long ago that beverage giants like Coke and Pepsi ...
>> </quote>
>
> Already knew about that. You did know that Code and Pepsi actually *share*
> a market, didn't you?
Can you imagine what would happen if a competitor were to arrive which
offered all their soda for free?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post ijb3c7$q86$1...@news.eternal-september.org on
> 2/14/11 4:24 AM:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>>>> news:ij9v4l$2ts$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> Too bad for your chortling that Microsoft itself provides sites describing
>>>> their "incentives" programs.
>>>
>>> Exactly which one of their websites or incentive programs confirms this
>>> claim?
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Microsoft effectively pays for this sort of advertising through the
>>> 'kickbacks' they provide to the hardware supply channels for ensuring
>>> Windows is on all machines and that such slogans are used.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> A company offering incentives to their sellers/distributors isn't exactly a
>>> smoking gun. I'm pretty sure it's been this way long before grandpa Gates
>>> and grandpa Ballmer were ever born.
>>
>> You just don't get it, do you?
>>
>> All sorts of business behavior becomes predatory, or unethical, when a
>> company has a *monopoly*.
>>
>> These "incentives" constitute monopoly maintenance.
>
> So now it should be, in your world, illegal to offer incentives? That is
> absurd.
The Creepy little sycophant makes his money selling closed source
proprietary Windows SW. Can you believe his whining? Does Creepy Chris
really think that his company doesnt smooch their customers?
The mind beggars at Ahlstrom's cluelessness and willingness to embarrass
himself time and time and time again.
DFS
Did you see the twerp whining about "bad laws" in relation to MS sales
incentives? As if a MS-hating, Linux-loving, Windows-developing
hypocrite like him has the experience and lack of bias to interpret and
enforce business law.
These lusers are too maniacal for words. As long as it doesn't impact
their own income, goobs like Linosuck and Homer would be content to
force unfair legal restrictions on MS, and only MS.
Snit
8:37 AM:
The fact is that *no* financial incentive is going to undercut free. Free.
MS cannot pay companies to sell Windows.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
> news:ijbdc9$oja$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
>> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet been
>> pushed through the system.
>
> So it is legal. You just don't like the laws as currently written.
Actually, I do not know whether these incentives are legal or not.
All I know is that there is no company out there, not even Ubuntu,
that has made any serious attempt to push Linux, through the hardware
vendors, as a serious alternative to the consumer.
I believe most of them gave up the idea of competing on Microsoft's turf
long ago, and no one is willing to take a chance on the very iffy U.S. legal
system (which pretty much failed over a decade ago) to protect them.
> So do you expect companies to comply with what *you* think the laws should
> be or should they comply with the laws as written?
Are you really asking that dumb-ass question, seriously?
>> Regardless of the legality, though, it should be clear that the only
>> reason
>> for Microsoft (the *only* OS vendor in the consumer desktop PC market) to
>> pay marketing incentives for a product which by far most people see as the
>> *only* choice in operating systems is to prevent *any* alternative from
>> becoming a significant presence. Otherwise, why put money into it?
>
> Imagine that... a company spending money to "defend their turf." So if you
> were running a company would it be your policy to just 'roll over and give
> up' in the face of competition?
Well, Microsoft is rolling over and paying, in the face of no competition.
How fscked is that?
>> That Microsoft has found a loophole or lack in the law does not change
>> that.
>
> You're from South Carolina and supposedly NASCAR is fairly popular around
> those parts. As the old saying goes... "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't
> tryin."
>
> ALL of these companies, politicians, political organizations, etc know
> exactly what the law is and they will push the boundaries of the laws in
> order to take advantage of everything they can. It's wishful thinking to
> believe otherwise.
Something sure ate out your spirit.
--
You've always made the mistake of being yourself.
-- Eugene Ionesco
Hadron
> Ezekiel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
>> news:ijbdc9$oja$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
>>> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet been
>>> pushed through the system.
>>
>> So it is legal. You just don't like the laws as currently written.
>
> Actually, I do not know whether these incentives are legal or not.
>
> All I know is that there is no company out there, not even Ubuntu,
> that has made any serious attempt to push Linux, through the hardware
> vendors, as a serious alternative to the consumer.
Why are you telling lies AGAIN?
Snit
2/14/11 7:15 AM:
...
>>> You just don't get it, do you?
>>>
>>> All sorts of business behavior becomes predatory, or unethical, when a
>>> company has a *monopoly*.
>>>
>>> These "incentives" constitute monopoly maintenance.
>>
>> You don't get it either, do you?
>>
>> Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing.
>
> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet been
> pushed through the system.
I agree: my morality is not defined by the law.
So what do you think MS is doing wrong? Be specific? Is offering
incentives wrong in your view?
>> All the
>> complaining in COLA about 'they shouldn't give incentives' and 'they
>> shouldn't do this' and blah-blah-blah doesn't matter. Show which laws are
>> being violated by giving incentives which (I'm no lawyer) appears to be
>> perfectly legal.
>>
>> Your *OPINION* of what they should or shouldn't do doesn't matter one bit.
>
> Opinion, hell.
Yes, it is your *opinion*.
>> What DOES matter is the law. Exactly which laws are being broken?
>
> Unfortunately, the U.S. DOJ is pretty consistently out-maneuvered and
> out-negotiated by Microsoft. And the kid-glove treatment by the Bush
> administration put the capper on it.
>
> Regardless of the legality, though, it should be clear that the only reason
> for Microsoft (the *only* OS vendor in the consumer desktop PC market) to
> pay marketing incentives for a product which by far most people see as the
> *only* choice in operating systems is to prevent *any* alternative from
> becoming a significant presence. Otherwise, why put money into it?
Remember: they *cannot* undercut free. They are not paying Dell to sell
Windows.
Linux us undercutting Windows.
> That Microsoft has found a loophole or lack in the law does not change that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
If the COLA turds were involved in the legal process, it would be
complete anarchy.
Could you imagine, 15 different Constitutions, all in the name of
choice?
Hahahaha1
Homer
>> Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing.
>
> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet
> been pushed through the system.
Like the law about to come into force in March, for example.
And yes, morality is far more important than the law. In this case, the
law was badly out of sync with morality (as is often the case).
Thankfully this has now been corrected.
The consequence of that is, of course, that all the morally bankrupt
supporters of deceptive advertising on the Web will now squeal their
objection in chorus.
How surprising.
DFS
> Ezekiel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom"<ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
>> news:ijbdc9$oja$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
>>> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet been
>>> pushed through the system.
>>
>> So it is legal. You just don't like the laws as currently written.
>
> Actually, I do not know whether these incentives are legal or not.
They are.
Unfortunately, so is giving crapware away for free:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/10/gpl_wallace_appeal/
> All I know is that there is no company out there, not even Ubuntu,
> that has made any serious attempt to push Linux, through the hardware
> vendors, as a serious alternative to the consumer.
How can it be pushed as a serious alternative to Windows when it
*cannot* fill that role?
> I believe most of them gave up the idea of competing on Microsoft's turf
> long ago, and no one is willing to take a chance on the very iffy U.S. legal
> system (which pretty much failed over a decade ago) to protect them.
It's not the legal system they're afraid of; it's non-paying customers.
Snit
AM:
Why not have the law set so any desktop OS must sell for X dollars...
completely level the playing field.
LOL!
That would really give Linux an advantage over where it is now, eh?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
>> news:ijbdc9$oja$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
>>> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet
>>> been
>>> pushed through the system.
>>
>> So it is legal. You just don't like the laws as currently written.
>
> Actually, I do not know whether these incentives are legal or not.
Since it's effectively being done out in the open (adds on public websites)
and you even mentioned that there are MS websites/webpages where to register
for the incentives I'd be willing to bet that they are legal.
> All I know is that there is no company out there, not even Ubuntu,
> that has made any serious attempt to push Linux, through the hardware
> vendors, as a serious alternative to the consumer.
>
> I believe most of them gave up the idea of competing on Microsoft's turf
> long ago, and no one is willing to take a chance on the very iffy U.S.
> legal
> system (which pretty much failed over a decade ago) to protect them.
How does your excuse for the US legal system scale across the rest of the
world and other countries where the same thing is being done and where Bush
can't protect MS?
>> So do you expect companies to comply with what *you* think the laws
>> should
>> be or should they comply with the laws as written?
>
> Are you really asking that dumb-ass question, seriously?
It's somewhat rhetorical. Companies will "push" the envelope of the law.
That's what they do.
>>> Regardless of the legality, though, it should be clear that the only
>>> reason
>>> for Microsoft (the *only* OS vendor in the consumer desktop PC market)
>>> to
>>> pay marketing incentives for a product which by far most people see as
>>> the
>>> *only* choice in operating systems is to prevent *any* alternative from
>>> becoming a significant presence. Otherwise, why put money into it?
>>
>> Imagine that... a company spending money to "defend their turf." So if
>> you
>> were running a company would it be your policy to just 'roll over and
>> give
>> up' in the face of competition?
>
> Well, Microsoft is rolling over and paying, in the face of no competition.
>
> How fscked is that?
In 2009 MS "illegally" included their IE browser with Windows and was fined.
A few years before that they were fined for "illegally" including a
media-player with Windows.
That's pretty fscked.
>>> That Microsoft has found a loophole or lack in the law does not change
>>> that.
>>
>> You're from South Carolina and supposedly NASCAR is fairly popular around
>> those parts. As the old saying goes... "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't
>> tryin."
>>
>> ALL of these companies, politicians, political organizations, etc know
>> exactly what the law is and they will push the boundaries of the laws in
>> order to take advantage of everything they can. It's wishful thinking to
>> believe otherwise.
>
> Something sure ate out your spirit.
No. It's just reality. Laws are put in place but laws will always be
"pushed" by individuals and companies. This morning on the way to work the
speed-limit was 55-mph. Just about everyone was pushing the limits of the
law. Show me a company that doesn't try and grab every advantage they
legally can and I'll show you a company that's soon out of business. I'm
sure that the company you and most everyone else works for takes as many tax
deductions as legally possible. They likely won't break the tax-laws, but
the accountants they hire make sure that they can extract every dollar they
can out of the laws as written.
Chris Ahlstrom
> How does your excuse for the US legal system scale across the rest of the
> world and other countries where the same thing is being done and where Bush
> can't protect MS?
Ask the <cough> <cough> EU.
>> Well, Microsoft is rolling over and paying, in the face of no competition.
>>
>> How fscked is that?
>
> In 2009 MS "illegally" included their IE browser with Windows and was fined.
> A few years before that they were fined for "illegally" including a
> media-player with Windows.
>
> That's pretty fscked.
I agree, since that was the least of the shitty things done by Microsoft.
--
...we must counterpose the overwhelming judgment provided by consistent
observations and inferences by the thousands. The earth is billions of
years old and its living creatures are linked by ties of evolutionary
descent. Scientists stand accused of promoting dogma by so stating, but
do we brand people illiberal when they proclaim that the earth is neither
flat nor at the center of the universe? Science *has* taught us some
things with confidence! Evolution on an ancient earth is as well
established as our planet's shape and position. Our continuing struggle
to understand how evolution happens (the "theory of evolution") does not
cast our documentation of its occurrence -- the "fact of evolution" --
into doubt.
- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer,
Vol XII No. 2
chrisv
>>
>> In 2009 MS "illegally" included their IE browser with Windows and was fined.
>> A few years before that they were fined for "illegally" including a
>> media-player with Windows.
>>
>> That's pretty fscked.
Perhaps if Micro$oft had not wielded IE like a weapon, such "fscked"
things wouldn't happen to them.
Them trying to make it so that you needed to buy Micro$oft products to
get the full Internet experience is perhaps the most despicable thing
that they've ever done.
But, at least it was "legal", eh, "Ezekiel?
--
"Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing." -
trolling fsckwit Ezekiel
Homer
>
>> How does your excuse for the US legal system scale across the rest of
>> the world and other countries where the same thing is being done and
>> where Bush can't protect MS?
>
> Ask the <cough> <cough> EU.
>
>>> Well, Microsoft is rolling over and paying, in the face of no
>>> competition.
>>>
>>> How fscked is that?
>>
>> In 2009 MS "illegally" included their IE browser with Windows and was
>> fined. A few years before that they were fined for "illegally"
>> including a media-player with Windows.
>>
>> That's pretty fscked.
>
> I agree, since that was the least of the shitty things done by
> Microsoft.
As usual, "Zeke" tries to rewrite history. The US vs Microsoft case was
in fact a "set of consolidated civil actions" by many different parties,
not just Netscape, and was about far more than IE. He also has a very
short memory, otherwise he'd remember that Microsoft /started/ this war
by threatening OEM's who dared to bundle Netscape with /their/ PCs, or
"cut off Netscape's air supply" as Paul Maritz put it:
[quote]
- Most notably [Netscape] also learned that Microsoft had threatened to
terminate Compaq's Windows license. This would have put Compaq - the
largest PC OEM in the world - out of business. This demonstrates
Microsoft's unprecedented power (D89) Barksdale claims this leads to
Compaq's decision not to put Navigator on the desktop
- Barksdale concludes that Microsoft pressure has led Netscape to be
forced into very limited distribution deals with all the major OEMs
(D92)
[/quote]
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/transcript/summaries1.html
[quote]
Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact[11] on November 5, 1999, which
stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 based personal computer
operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had
taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java,
Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others. Then on April
3, 2000, he issued a two-part ruling: his conclusions of law were that
Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and
tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and his
remedy was that Microsoft must be broken into two separate units, one to
produce the operating system, and one to produce other software
components.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Microsoft behaved like a bunch of gangsters running a racketeering
operation (and still does), and was quite rightly prosecuted for it.
The only "injustice" was that Microsoft's criminal operation wasn't shut
down for good, and Gates and Ballmer weren't imprisoned.
--
K. | "MS is working fast and furious
http://slated.org | on security." ~ DFS, June 2004
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 2:46 | http://tinyurl.com/doofygoofs1
chrisv
> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>
>> Imagine that... a company spending money to "defend their turf." So if you
>> were running a company would it be your policy to just 'roll over and give
>> up' in the face of competition?
Imagine that... a Micro$oft shill defending unethical behavior.
>Well, Microsoft is rolling over and paying, in the face of no competition.
>
>How fscked is that?
Well, not at all, according to "Ezekiel".
"Ezekiel" *endorses* cheating to win, and, if you can stay one step
ahead of the law, there's been "no wrong doing"!
>>> That Microsoft has found a loophole or lack in the law does not change
>>> that.
>>
>> You're from South Carolina and supposedly NASCAR is fairly popular around
>> those parts. As the old saying goes... "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't
>> tryin."
That's a good analogy to the M$ philosophy, fsckwit. I'm impressed.
But isn't "cheatin", by definition, breaking the rules, or laws,
fsckwit?
I know you're not the only *asshole* in the world, "Ezekiel", but you
sure are a major one!
>> ALL of these companies, politicians, political organizations, etc know
>> exactly what the law is and they will push the boundaries of the laws in
>> order to take advantage of everything they can. It's wishful thinking to
>> believe otherwise.
It's "wishful thinking" that a company will behave ethically, eh,
"Ezekiel"?
So, they can pollute, exploit labor, screw competitors, fsck-over
customers, whatever, as long as they're in a time and a place where
there's no "law" against it, and that's A-OK, huh?
>Something sure ate out your spirit.
Amazing that that amoral son of a bitch thinks that he's better than
me.
One-Shot , One-Kill
useless fscking asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ig3ll6tf155si25k3...@4ax.com...
another fine "advocacy" post from the dumbest fscking turd in the toilet
bowl.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a stupid piece of shit.
chrisv
>>>
>>> You're from South Carolina and supposedly NASCAR is fairly popular around
>>> those parts. As the old saying goes... "If you ain't cheatin, you ain't
>>> tryin."
This is the trolling fsckwit's way of admitting that it's not really
about whether or not laws are broken, and that it's really about
whether or not you get caught.
chrisv
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. There are bad laws; there are situations where laws are
>>> inadequate and unjust; and there are situations where no law has yet been
>>> pushed through the system.
>>
>> So it is legal. You just don't like the laws as currently written.
I'm wondering if "Ezekiel" thinks if, in the case of new drugs that
have not yet been officially legislated as controlled substances, it
would be OK to give them to children.
--
"Unless LAWS are being broken then there is no wrong doing." -
trolling fsckwit Ezekiel