@ simplex

Quote:

I have yet to see how quoting Dan Quayle's and George W Bush's speech flubs is at all relevant to the issue.

The_Editor made a comment about getting away with things in the US legal system. I made some light-hearted jokes with regard to the US system in general.

Quote:

The US Justice Department is the government arm charged with enforcing the law; ordinarily, all prosecution by the US government is done by the US Justice Department.

I have no problem with your definition. It's the Justice Department's job to *independently* uphold the law in a just Democracy.

Quote:

The US Justice Department was prosecuting the anti-trust lawsuit

IMO it cannot be denied that after Bush's election the justice department has significantly changed (e.g. instead of breaking up the company, seek a much less severe"settlement") its tune. This is somewhat strange as the actual laws haven't changed.

However IMO this is not really a big surprise considering the following quotes from Mr Bush and some little more relevant information provided with regard to the Microsoft anti-trust case before Buch became the president of the United States.

----
Bush said at a news conference Monday that, "If you're looking for the kind of president I will be, I'll be slow to litigate." Bush added that he would consider potential antitrust action by first asking "Are the entities innovative, are jobs being created, the economy better off?"

Protestations aside, it was obvious to me that Bush was playing the "Microsoft Card" for all it was worth. He was reportedly flanked by representatives of high-tech companies, including Microsoft, and what's more, Washington Senator Slade Gorton told reporters that a President Bush would try to settle the Microsoft case without breaking up the company.
----

Quote:

The president, and any contributions to his campaign, had nothing to do with it.

I just gave you a possible explanation with regard to your "the fact that this pops up constantly on computer-related sites". Maybe you shouldn't have suggested that I should ponder?

Quote:

Looked more like a smirk to me.

This image is called "icon_wink.gif" and is in fact a wink.

smirk: a smile that expresses satisfaction or pleasure about having done something or knowing something which is not known by someone else

wink: to close one eye briefly as a way of greeting someone or showing friendliness, affection, sexual attraction etc., or of showing that you are not serious about something you have said

Believe me, you can count out the affection, sexual attraction part though.... Oops... I should be careful about using that image considering in what ways it can be interpreted.

@MikeB
Quote:

The_Editor made a comment about getting away with things in the US legal system. I made some light-hearted jokes with regard to the US system in general.

The_Editor's comment was obviously relevant to the topic: he was expressing his opinion that Microsoft would, in the end, get away.

Your comment was totally irrelevant to the topic. If you're going to suggest that the topic is so general that your post on the alleged stupidity of American presidents and vice-presidents becomes relevant, then a lot of gary_c's postings on the alleged behavior of Amiga, Inc. suddenly become relevant to any discussion of Amiga and its partners, and the moderation designed to exclude such "off-topic" posts (which, again, I support) becomes highly hypocritical.

Quote:

It's the Justice Department's job to *independently* uphold the law in a just Democracy.

I agree, which is why it's logically inconsistent for you simultaneously to maintain that political pressure from Bush caused the "non-independent" Justice Department to change its desired punishment (which, again, did not change until after the government's wish was granted, then revoked after appeal by a different judge), and then not to credit that same Bush administration for pressuring the "independent" Justice Department to file new complaints against Microsoft for what is arguably just a bug.

The fact that I disagree with that Bush statement on antitrust litigation, does not change any of the facts of the current situation, nor does it change the fact that the Clinton-controlled Justice Department botched the prosecution of Microsoft by not bringing forward Jean-Louis Gasse, or by (perhaps) asking for too harsh a punishment, or the fact that the Reagan-appoitned judge who first ordered the breakup, made some very stupid remarks that got the punishment overturned. Just look at the timeline and this article's reporting the appeal's court's opinion that the government could not win a breakup. Heck, I'll just quote it for you:

Thursday's decisions were not unexpected because the appeals court suggested in its ruling that both a breakup remedy and the tying claim would be tough for the government to win.

You cannot possibly assert that the appeals court is controlled by the Bush government.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@ simplex

IMO it's pretty much useless to drag this on forever, so this will be my final comment with regard to this issue, giving you the oppertunity to have the last word if you so desire.



Quote:

then a lot of gary_c's postings on the alleged behavior of Amiga, Inc. suddenly become relevant to any discussion of Amiga and its partners, and the moderation designed to exclude such "off-topic" posts (which, again, I support) becomes highly hypocritical.

1) One important difference is that we have heard about the Amiga allegations and "speculations" a zillion times already. I have never before written a message containing those quotes.

And I recommend that you reread DaveP's moderation explanation thread again, as there were several reasons why DaveP locked this thread.

2) We are not going to censor tongue-in-cheek comments or other comments not directly addressing the issue at hand. For instance if we have a news item about the new Atari (formerly known as Infogrames) company releasing a new game and someone writes in reply a comment about this person's Atari Lynx experiences from the past or a tongue-in-cheek comment like "I hope it's gonna do better than Atari's E.T for the Atari 2600! " we are not going to censor this.

3) My comments were not intended to be malicious and I have repeatably apologized to you for this misunderstanding. And I will be more careful in the future as I was not aware that this would be such a big deal to some of AmigaWorld's visitors.

Quote:

Bush administration for pressuring the "independent" Justice Department

IMO in a just democracy any such pressure should be considered illegal and brought to justice. I believe the proceding of antitrust lawsuits should be none of the president's business (other than pushing for new general laws).

IMO justice is not well served when companies or individuals with deeper pockets have far more legal abilities than those without. IMO this is too often the case in the United States and is something I greatly dislike about the system.

These are my personal opinions as I made clear and your's may differ. I believe we should just try to respect eachother's point of view.

@MikeB

Quote:

IMO it's pretty much useless to drag this on forever

I agree, which is why I would not reply now, except to clarify two misunderstandings I think you have.

Quote:

IMO in a just democracy any such pressure should be considered illegal and brought to justice. I believe the proceding of antitrust lawsuits should be none of the president's business (other than pushing for new general laws).

I absolutely agree with your first sentence, not the second.

As for the first, however, no one, least of all yourself, has brought forth the slightest shred of evidence, let alone convincing evidence, that the Justice Department changed its proposed remedies because Bill bought Bush. As I quoted above, it was not even the Bush administration's recommendation that the Justice Dept. do so; it was the appeals court's recommendation -- and in case you don't understand the American constitutional system, the appeals court is outside of Bush's control.

The fact that the Bush administration's legal philosophy differs from mine does not for a moment mean that they are in fact guilty of sabotaging the case, especially in view of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. To conjecture otherwise may make for an opinion, but that is all it is. You however asserted such an opinion as though it were fact, and backed off only when I proved otherwise. To insinuate as you do that the change in administration was the only reason the Justice Department changed their proposed remedy, is either disingenuous or ignorant. In either case, you shouldn't make such claims as thought they were fact, especially in a public and international forum. With freedom comes responsibility.

As for the second, in the American system, one of the powers explicitly granted by the Constitution to the president, is to enforce the law of the land; this falls under the purview of the executive branch. You may believe this is unjust, but that's your opinion, and if you think someone else should control the Justice Department, I'd be curious to know who that should be in the American system: the Supreme Court? or Congress? Do you really think the unelected judges of the Supreme Court, who sit for lifelong terms, can't be bought? and in light of software patents and the copyright law, has the American Congress shown any better judgement than the President?

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.