I don't think you need to be working for MS just to dislike false accusations. I think Chad was very precise in his question. And genuinely interested in finding the truth too. This discussion has been escalating until the question was lost.
This was the statement: > If a vendor failed to adhere to that, then the vendor was shut down, > and all assets went to Microsoft. And this was the question related to it: >Care to give any evidence at all that this happened? Especially the >Microsoft getting all their stuff after they closed up shop. I'm sorry if this was answered by the links. I haven't seen an answer in this thread though. /$ 2005/12/9, Roger Markus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 12/9/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 12/8/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 10:41 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > > > > > > That was _one_ of the reasons they were charged with anti-trust > > > violations. > > > > xan > > > http://www.tbtf.com/resource/netscape-letter.html > > > > It makes me wonder, have you [snip] ever been convicted of any > > crime? have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? > > > Well, Chad, old chap. Now we know you're guilty! One of the surest signs > of deep and defenseless guilt is saying "But someone else is also guilty!" > So - how much does Microsoft pay you to pump their spin into this list? Are > you being paid by the same people who pay that druggie Rush? > > Say - everyone - here's another call to ban this Microsoft PR spinner from > this list. He (or is it she?) doesn't belong here. Every intelligent > person on the list wants him off - why is he still here? > > TM > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
