From: Ellen K. 

$0.05 for excess logic.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:33:37 -0000, "Paul Ranson"
 wrote in message :

>The more you quote the stupider the judge looks.
>
>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:onnc4vocjg0reamd7rehipjmnmuq9gakmt{at}4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:06:37 -0800, Ellen K.

>> I had similar problems with IE 3 and 4, which is why I went through the
>> hassle of trying to uninstall IE and installing an alternate browser.
>
>All you had to do was install 'an alternate browser', it worked then and it
>works now.
>
>> By the by, to insert some reality in this conversatoin, here's an excerpt
>> of Judge Jackson's Findings of fact that is appropriate.
>> ...
>
>It's not worth commenting on the crap that you've quoted. Clearly the
>concept of a judge finding 'fact' has been wildly reinterpreted by Jackson.
>
>If Windows were cheaper now than it were, you might have a point. If Web
>applications were still pie in the sky, you might have a point. If Java had
>some inherent 'goodness' that MS had stifled, you might have a point.
>
>I completed, calculated and filed my tax return online this year. The
>requirements were
>
>a.. An Internet browser - version 4.0 (or later) of Microsoft Internet
>Explorer or version 4.6 (or later) of Netscape Navigator or Netscape
>Communicator. (Your Internet browser must have JavaScript and cookies
>enabled and be capable of supporting 128-bit SSL).
>
>How did Judge Jackson make this possible? How did MS make it impossible?
>Where are the 'facts'? The UK Inland Revenue is looking likely to be
>expiring an enormous number of Windows installations from their desktops,
>this won't be because of Judge Jackson or any Anti-trust actions, it'll be
>because the alternatives give more function for less investment. As it
>should be.
>
>Paul

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4