From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 19 07:04:29 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E663F16A41B for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:04:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from mail1.webmaster.com (mail1.webmaster.com [216.152.64.169]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D5E13C4F8 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:04:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from however by webmaster.com (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.3.R) with ESMTP id md50001815740.msg for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:04:50 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: , Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:03:37 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20071218183247.7b68a645@soralx> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:04:50 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:04:51 -0800 Cc: des@des.no, bitabyss@gmail.com, af300wsm@gmail.com, tedm@toybox.placo.com Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:04:30 -0000 > I will act as an arbiter for a minute here, can I? > The support for your position comes in bulk from "historical" data. Ted > holds that the whole Netscape ordeal was manipulated to intentionally > put Microsoft into vulnerable position in that respect, so as to divert > attention of the court from other, far more important issues. I cannot > judge how right this statement is, but I would thus say you are relying > too much on those records being TRUE (a keyword here, means the kind of > scientific truthfulness Feynman was lecturing about). This is a better statement of what's wrong with Ted's position than I could ever make, and I thank you. Like any other conspiracy theory, you must interpret all the historical data according to the rules of the conspiracy. When some off-hand remark supports the conspiracy, it supports the conspiracy. When clear, documented statements conflict with the conspiracy, it is evidence of the conspiracy's effectiveness. If recourse to the historical record is off-limits, all that is left is speculation. If we accept, as Ted does, that we can't trust any documentation to reflect any truth at all, we will end up concluding whatever position we started with. Anything that conflicts is just evidence of how well the truth we search for was covered up. Ted can point to *no* historical evidence or evidence of any kind to support his claim that this revenue stream was a recognized at the time he claims it was or that it ever motivated anyone to do anything. He can argue that it should have and that it would be reasonable for it to have. The biggest counter-argument -- if Microsoft had a legitimate claim like this, they surely would have raised it in court when they faced the equivalent of a corporate death penalty. Ted has no response to this argument except the importance of keeping things secret. But this response justifies the absence of any evidence at all, so defends all claims equally. That means it supports no claims at all. DS