03 Oct 99 21:32, Jack Stein wrote to Stewart Honsberger:

 JS>> Yeah, right... The truth is not slander, nor libel, far as I know.

 SH>> You don't know much about the law either, I see.

 JS> I guess thats slander on your part.

No, I was voicing an observation based on what I'd seen.

 JS>> when they said they OS/2 is not for the home user,

 SH>> Reference please.

 JS> Look it up yourself.

When you claim something as fact, it's up to you to back it up.

 SH>> One of the big facets of retail sales is organization. Trying 
 SH>> to get as much product into the amount of space you have 
 SH>> available to you in a visually appealing way. Why devote a 
 SH>> section to a product that won't sell, when you could use it for 
 SH>> more products that WILL sell?

 JS> It was up to IBM to support the marketing end of OS/2 so users would 
 JS> want to try it.  They didn't, and users didn't.

IBM did market OS/2. It's not their fault that there wasn't enough
market interest to shelve the product.

 SH>> Oh, pardon me, they're not catering to your individual
 SH>> needs, so it bores you.

 JS> Correct.  

Of course. A multi-national corporation should put all business plans
aside to cater to Jack Stein. I forgot.

 JS> {sigh} Are you stupid, or just uninformed?  Guess I'll have to dig 
 JS> out my dictionary... lets see, The Ameriacn Heritage Dictionary of 
 JS> the English Language says:

 JS> support:... 6) "To provide for or maintain by supplying with money or 
 JS> other necessities."  7) To aid the cause of by approving, favoring, 
 JS> or advocating."

Forcing stores to carry a product isn't "supplying" with anything, it's
illegal.

Don't you know about the anti-trust case(s) in progress, or what they
mean?

 SH>> What does that prove? That because IBM didn't (illegally)
 SH>> shove their product in peoples' faces and down their
 SH>> throats, that they're not interested in supporting it?

 JS> Yes, stores could easily stock OS/2 if people were interested in 
 JS> buying it.  IBM had the power, money and influence to market the hell 
 JS> out of OS/2, and make it pretty, and make it installable, and provide 
 JS> developers with tons of support.  The chose not to.

You're not listening. If stores don't want to shelf a product, there's
nothing that says that they have to.

 SH>> I'm interested in you joining my religion. I'll be at your
 SH>> door every day at 6:00 AM, 12:00 noon, and 6:00 PM forcing
 SH>> you to read my religious pamphlets. I will use whatever
 SH>> force neccesary to get into your house, and when you're not
 SH>> home, I'll fill your mailbox with advertisements. 

 SH>> I guess I'm "just interested in supporting" my religion,
 SH>> right? 

 JS> I haven't a clue what you're rambling about there?

You seem to feel that forcing things on people is acceptable. You see
what Microsoft is doing by forcing their products on people, and you
feel that IBM should do the same. I was using an analogy.

 SH>> Judging by this statement, and the above quoted statement,
 SH>> I'm assuming that you don't understand the libel laws.

 JS> I'm not a damned laywer, if thats your question.

Neither am I. I simply know what libel is when I see it.

 SH>> "I don't believe that IBM has sufficiently supported OS/2"
 SH>> is an opinion. "IBM NEVER supported OS/2, not for one day."
 SH>> is a libelous claim. 

 JS> When given in a Fido conference, by a nobody, it is an opinion.  Only 
 JS> a dolt would think otherwise.

Oh, so as long as you post slander and/or libel in a FidoNet conference,
it's not against the law? I thought you weren't a lawyer?

 SH>> Linux does not need a name to move forward.

 JS> {sigh} Yes it does.

I forgot. You don't even know the difference between Linux and UNIX, but
you're the expert.

 JS> We all know MS is useless.  On the other hand, watch what you say, 
 JS> you might be sued for libel and slander, in fact, I guess I should 
 JS> say I hope you are, but then I'd be lying, I don't give a damn if you 
 JS> are or aren't.

No, what I posted are facts, obtained by reading the reports of the
benchmarks they performed. Another fact is that MS financially supported
those benchmarks.

 JS> And Linux share of the desktop is?  

More than you apparently realize.

 JS> It would survive, but where, on a few thousand meaningless 
 JS> computers...

This statement proves that you know little about Linux.

 JS> The computer world knows less about LINUX than they do about OS/2.

Just because you don't know much about Linux doesn't mean the computer
world in general is the same way.

 SH>> 2) Linux is not by any means "freeware". Most software for
 SH>> Linux is Open Source Software. Completely different concept,
 SH>> completely different development system.

 JS> You're wrong again.  LINUX is freeware, it is not public domain.  You 
 JS> don't know much do you, let me throw in one of your {sigh}'s...

Have you read/understood what the GPL is? GNU Public License.

 SH>> {sigh} It is not an acronym. The name of the operating
 SH>> system is Linux. 

 JS> {sigh} Who give's a rat's patoot?  Why don't you run a spell checker 
 JS> on my post while you're at it...{sigh}

I was merely pointing out that you don't even know the proper name of
the product, therefore you mustn't know much about the product itself.

                                      -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Stewart Honsberger (AKA Blackdeath)   Version 3.12
 @ blackdeath@tinys.oix.com           GCS d-(--) s++:-- a--- C++>$ UL++ P+
 @ http://sprk.com/blackdeath/        L++ W++ N++ w---- O+++ PS+ PGP+ t+
 @ ICQ:3484915                        tv+ b+ DI+++ G e- h++ r* y+ PE Y+
                                      ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

... No matter what goes wrong, someone knew it would.
-!- GOPGP/2 v1.23

--- Msged/2 TE 05