This totally OT thread is just a ramble down memory lane for me, so if you don't give a hoot about PCs and their history, don't bother to read further.

I was made a PC pioneer in 1982 by my Agency, AID, because the IT department was in a purple panic due to the fact that many people in our overseas missions were bringing their personally owned Apple II's in to work with them. The IT department sensed a loss of control was in the making, so my little team came up with Agency-wide PC standards and approved products.

Anyway, in those very early days, two software products, from two companies, were considered to have ushered in the PC revolution. Microsoft was one of the companies, but BASIC for PCs was its contribution. The operating system that got the revolution going was CP/M (by Digital Research?) with as I recall all of seven commands. You could learn it in no time at all, but the damn thing worked. But IBM chose Microsoft, a pretty small firm at the time, to write the operating system for the new IBM PC. This was PC DOS, which became MS DOS, and Microsoft split away from the IBM partnership, and the rest is history.

Along the way, MS came out with some really bad products. I still think a review of an early communications package (in Government Computer News) was the most devasting critique of a PC software product that I have ever read. And the precursor to the wildly successful Windows 3.0 which my office had, Windows 2.0, well, let's just say that there was a lot of Arf Arf and Bow-wow-wow in that version.

Windows 3.0 was something else. Products that were integrated with 3.0 (with its pull-down menus etc) were much easier to learn and use.

Recent uncomplementary judgements on Robert Cringely (who apparently made a total ass of himself on a TV program) reminded me of the truism that even such as he may have a redeeming quality or two. In Cringely's case it is self-deprecating humor. For a long time he wrote a wiseass column in Infoworld (maybe he still does). Anyway, when MS "Bob" came out (remember Bob, interface for kindergartners) according to Cringely he was going around claiming that Microsoft had named the product in honor of him. But his main squeeze Pam, according to the story, stopped this by inquiring aloud in a wondering voice why on earth Microsoft would name its new product "Lardass".

Which is a pretty neat segue, if I do say so, to the subject of "fatware". MS has been infamous (it certainly has not been the only offender) for having new versions of its products be incredibly obese. People have been wondering aloud if MS and Intel aren't in cahoots. Fatware can be so obese that it isn't adequately tested before release.

Changing the subject to allegations of abuse of monopoly power, Senator Hatch of Utah has been on MS's case for a long time. You could say that his motivation comes from all the software firms in Utah (I think, tho I may be wrong here, that WordPerfect, Borland, and Novell were all Utah based when he was raising some serious hell.) Well, I don't care about all those firms being in Utah, I think the Senator has been absolutely right about Microsoft I'm delighted with the decision today.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), November 05, 1999

Answers

I watched an entire development group at my company get fired because of Microsoft..

Our company sells a client product and a server product (don't want to be too specific.. ) The client made 80% of our revenue. The server was a brand new product that competed head to head with Microsoft's product.

Microsoft didn't like that. They told my CEO to can our server product or else they would compete head to head with our client product.

Our server product was far better than Microsoft's product, but because of overt threats, our spineless management caved in.

I'm glad to see the decision today. Microsoft richly deserve's it.

My view about government intervention changed when I watched REAL PEOPLE and friends lose their jobs.

I'll NEVER forget that.

-- anonthistime (noblacklist@foo.com), November 05, 1999.

Pete,

OT or not, that was a pretty good post. It will bore the young whippersnappers out there, but I enjoyed it. I remember well my very first desktop PC, the monster "Vic-20". Was that before shrink-wrapped software or what? hehehehe

If ya wanted to do anything but impress yer neighbors, ya best learn BASIC and tell the dern thing what to do!! Those were the days allright.

Tell ya what though...I never had a windows version until Win95. DOS was fast. Even in my old age, I still like fast. I still think my Tandy 1000 was faster than this AMD K-6 II 350MHZ machine. But it ain't the machine...it's the fat software of which you speak! Microsoft has patterned itself after the U.S. Government...it has become bloated with nonsensical (is that a word?) crap and is woefully inefficient. LINUX is looking better all the time. I just hate to learn a whole new O/S.

Thanx for the stroll down memory lane! ;)

-- Don Wegner (donfmwyo@earthlink.net), November 05, 1999.

"But IBM chose Microsoft, a pretty small firm at the time, to write the operating system for the new IBM PC."

And they didn't even write it, they purchased it from Digital someone or another, who's name slips me at the moment... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

Excuse me folks.

Your glad tidings at the ruling today against Microsoft is nothing more than a cheer for Fascism.

Though I have no love lost for MS, and the pirate nature and ruthlessness of their business practices nauseates me,...a dangerous precedent has been set here, not too unlike the government lawsuits of Tobacco Companies.

It won't stop with MS, just as it didn't stop with Phillip Morris.

It will move onto fed-X, Ebay, and any special interest lobbying group seeking to use the government spear to gut the competition instead of head-to-head combat in the market. And of course the all-too benevolent government will eagerly use the Rottweiler Reno to sick as many bucks from the target as possible.

Unless of course you're a generous doner to the DNC and you have Chinese Space contracts to fill.

Getting even with Gates and MS through use of the Gov will only embolden a bloated bureaucracy with even more ambitious and sinister pograms.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 06, 1999.

Nice story, OT or not. A long time ago, about 1979, I was making a sales call on Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, otherwise known as PARC. I worked for Pacific Telephone at the time and was trying to get PARC off Centrex and onto a telephone system, probably an old Dimension. One of my customers took me into a lab and showed me this contraption that looked like a TV screen with a typewriter and this funny looking small device that navigated the screen. As history has noted, Xerox clearly did not know what they had.

I was fascinated and wanted one. Eleven PCs later here I am wedded to Microsoft Office. I still haven't installed the release 2 of Windows 98 and have the daily joy of the Bill Gates salute (control, alt, delete) when I run out of memory or if Norton intercepts a crash. I have had better relationships with my ex husband.

No question, the man is brilliant and has built an empire, but it would be nice to have viable choices that work for a business environment.... sigh

-- Nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), November 06, 1999.

Just to lighten things up a bit...

< br>


-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), November 06, 1999.

Nancy, Aahh Mmmeenn!

-- karla (karlacalif@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

Sorry - MS software screwed up again!!!



-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), November 06, 1999.

INVAR, I assume from your comment that you consider Teddy Roosevelt ("malefactors of great wealth") to have been a fascist.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), November 06, 1999.

Peter,

I'm not going to characterize personal ideology here, be it Teddy Roosevelt's or Clinton's.

Suffice it to say that when you have government pressures being mounted on PRIVATE business, in order to achieve a business/government union, (especially to exact monetary penalty) you have fascism, which becomes extremely corrupt quickly.

A corrupt business, left to it's own eventually succumbs to its own demise via the free market. A corrupt business in the hands of a more corrupt government......you've got the weaponry of tryanny at your disposal.

Fascism is anethema to our Constitution and our Birthright be it in the past or in the near future.

Unfortunately greed clouds any good judgement.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 06, 1999.

Yes, how truly rewarding to see Sir Janet Lord Reno and her rusty sidekick Renfield dancing on the body of the vanquished, proclaiming how no man is above the law in this country.

I got all misty eyed, until I realized I was watching neither the SNL out-takes, nor the Great Moments in Hypocrisy Awards Ceremony.

Yes, Dear Mice, by all means, hate the official designated targets of public hatred. Don't for a moment ask yourselves *why* the regime strives to have you focus on the designated enemy, rather than scrutinize *its* behavior.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to make my living using and writing about Microsoft products, and I'll continue poking fun at the mice who blindly obey the Reno bandwagon, reminding them that if *not* for what MS has done over the past two decades, they'd be using overpriced, underfeatured, standard-free hardware, and bitching about *that* instead.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 06, 1999.

Isn't that Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber in the upper right corner of that picture?

-- geekmeister (weird@lookin.cat), November 06, 1999.

Ron, I agree that we have accomplished a good deal of efficiency due to Microsoft products, but monopolies are too damn dangerous. There has got be a certain amount of balance and competition, or else half the poulation will be out of jobs. Efficiency isn't everything when you sacrifice creativity and ingenuity. I don't see Microsoft as being dangerous at this point in time, but I think the intention here is to slow them down a bit before they devour the world.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

I've been programming since the early 80's and MS is a monopoly in every sense of the word. They really are the Borg of the software world. I've seen some really great products killed because of their predatory practices.

For example, a little over two years ago I was beta-testing a product that was written completely in Java that was a duplicate of MSOffice. I mean the interface was the same, you could load Word files, cut and paste between Java apps AND real Office apps such as Excel, etc. And best of all, most of it could be implemented as an applet (ie.downloaded on demand). It would have allowed truly 'rentable' apps over the web. A *VERY* real threat to the MSOffice revenue stream. Guess what? After months of waiting for it to be released the authors sold out to Microsoft and the product was never heard of again. Has MS released anything resembling it? Nope. Has the consumer benefitted from this? Nope.

MS also has a habit of killing, or at least severely wounding, entire classes of technology. In the late 80's there was a pretty damn good pen based computer that used propietary handwriting recognition software. A few weeks after the machine was released MS announced that they were working on their own handwriting recognition software and poof! Just about everybody stopped buying the new machine. MS then took EIGHT YEARS before actually doing ANYTHING Pen based. Only when PalmPilot's started appearing did they take it seriously. Vaporware at it's best! Did the consumer benefit from this? Nope.

Microsoft *HAS* to be broken up if we ever want to get back to the point where consumers actually have a CHOICE in what they use.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), November 06, 1999.

You know the world is gonna end.

Apple was up to over $88 today in the market.

Microsoft got beaten down by the gov.

Things are too perfect : )

Watch out world, the hammer is gonna fall and fall hard.

Mike

=====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

"Ron, I agree that we have accomplished a good deal of efficiency due to Microsoft products, but monopolies are too damn dangerous. There has got be a certain amount of balance and competition, or else half the poulation will be out of jobs. Efficiency isn't everything when you sacrifice creativity and ingenuity. I don't see Microsoft as being dangerous at this point in time, but I think the intention here is to slow them down a bit before they devour the world."

You're nuts.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 06, 1999.

Invar,

and what 'dangerous precedent' might that be ? That companies can't use their monopoly powers illegally ?

I suggest you actually read the findings of fact first before you post.

-- a programmer (a@programmer.com), November 06, 1999.

Tech32,

much as I am pleased with the judge's FOF, we have a choice already. Ever heard of Linux ? Go download yourself a copy my friend.

-- a programmer (a@programmer.com), November 06, 1999.

a programmer,

Yes, I'm well aware of Linux but it's market share is tiny, and as a programmer, I just don't see many employers looking to hire people with Linux skills. The bigger question is how many new PCs are being shipped with Linux by PC makers? A fraction of a percent maybe? How much money can a developer really make by investing the time to develop a Linux based word processor or spreadsheet? Not much. I certainly wouldn't put in that much time unless I knew that I had at least a *chance* of making some big bucks. The way it stands now if I did develop a word processor for Linux the most I could hope for would be a few crumbs compared to what I could make if I developed one for Windows that didn't have to compete with Word. It's all about desktop real-estate dontcha know...

I don't fault MS for developing an OS (buggy as it might be) but I most definitely blame them for the dearth of choices in app software. There are over 100 million PCs in the US. Don't you think we should have more than just one 'contender' for word processing? The reason MSOffice is on almost every desktop is because (in violation of anti-trust laws) MS threatened PC makers. They told them in no uncertain terms 'you put Office on your machines or we won't license Windows to you'. And up until this most recent legal action they did the same thing with OSs 'if you ship any boxes with Linux, we won't license Windows to you'. Now how many machines would Dell or Gateway sell if they didn't have Windows on it? Not many.

For the longest time MS claimed there was a 'chinese wall' between the OS and the APP groups (though programmers all knew that wasn't true). Then a few years ago they stopped even making that claim, believing there was nothing wrong with the two groups working together.

They regularly develop and use new OS APIs without making those same APIs available to developers outside of MS. For example, when they first released OLE all MS apps supported it, but it was 18 MONTHS before they released the API/Docs to the rest of the world. And even then the Docs were incomplete and incorrect. You can bet that their own developers don't have deal with that crap. MS also has a long, long, history of sabotaging competitors programs (ever hear the saying "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run"?). They still do it today.

As far as I'm concerned they are getting just what they deserve...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), November 06, 1999.

John D. Rockefeller is purported to have said after the breakup of Standard Oil, "So What?" (or sentiment to that effect) He was unconcerned. (He fought so hard because he didn't like being told what to do.) He still owned the stock that he owned, and after the breakup, he owned stock in several companies, rather than just one.

The same thing will happen with Microsoft, if it's broken up. Bill Gates will still own the stock he owns, it will just be spread out a bit more. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes him even richer than he is already. He'll adjust.

When Standard Oil was broken up, their main product was lamp oil. The time of the breakup, was also around the time of the advent of the automobile. Petroleum products for automobiles turned out to be a much larger market than lamp oil (which eventually went away thanks to Edison, another monopolist). The weenies at Microsoft will likely find themselves in a similar position. Maybe the OS is the lamp oil of this age, what will be the gasoline of the next decades? Don't be surprised if some Microsoft spin-off company jumps on it, whatever it is.

-- (dot@dot.dot), November 06, 1999.

"You're nuts.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 06, 1999."

You suck Dick.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

Break-up MS. Sure. You want a lot of companies writing "buggy" software instead of one.

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

" and what 'dangerous precedent' might that be ? That companies can't use their monopoly powers illegally ?"

No, that's what the courts are for.

My problem is the Justice Department being used as an attack dog to go after private industry. Who might be next? I'll be curious as to how much money went to the DNC from Netscape and others to facillitate the action here. Sorry for the cynicism, but the hypocritical action here in the face of what we now know about Loral Corp., Tyson foods and others makes for such suspicions. The dangerous precedent is that with this administration, having set the tenor, the government can be used as a weapon by your competition to achieve what it cannot through the free market.

I know no one likes to hear that, and the mob mentality is to rejoice with glee at the government's intervention (I'm a Mac user so I have no stake in MS), I just wonder how long it's going to be before another industry is targeted for breakup or nationalization.

You may not see the correlation of the government attacks on Health Care, tobacco, gun mfrs. and Microsoft - but I see a defined pattern here. And the shouts of glee from the populace at the beheading of an industry behemoth (which may or may not prove to become a Hydra), just emboldens a government to intervene and meddle where it has no business interfering.

What quickly follows will be ways the government will collect money from Microsoft in fines, litigation and punative damages. Just as with tobacco and now gun mfrs., Microsoft is the next target of a huge transfer of wealth from the private sector to the government.

Government should have no role in interfering with business practices that do not threaten the health or general welfare of the people. If a competitor has a grievance, file a lawsuit...that's what the courts were designed for. To use government as a weapon towards "evening the playing field" (which it NEVER does, except to its own benefit), will only lead towards the eventual (if not already) corrupt use of power towards wealth confiscation and manipulation.

Always follow the money. There's an agenda being played out here.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 06, 1999.

Invar:

An agenda suggests a plan for organized action. Provide some details of you thoughts on this matter. Please delete attacks on the Democratic party!!! That will dilute the impact of your statements.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

Invar, your comparison of Microsoft with the tobaccy industry or the gun manufacturers is totally inappropriate. These cases are a totally different animal.

If you want to get down on government about something, then get down on them for allowing corporations to exist in the first place. That would settle a lot of this crap.

From a constitutional perspective, the government has every right to sue Microsoft. They haven't stomped on anyone's rights by so doing. They have as much right to sue them as you or I do.

-- Don Wegner (donfmwyo@earthlink.net), November 06, 1999.

Z,

How does connecting the Democrats to actual events and positions dilute the impact of pointing out the hypocrisy? They're there precisely to illustrate such.

Not attacking the DNC just out of spite. The executive wavers and favors from DNC contributions from Loral, Tyson and others are well- documented. They happened. I'm just noting the hypocrisy of their positions when it comes to companies breaking the law or circumventing it, because it reveals an emerging agenda. They will look the other way and even defend and cover-up the violations of trust and security of a company that skirts the law provided there were huge political contributions, but descend like a hawk on companies that they can extort money and control over, if there were no like contributions.

Had Microsoft gone the route of Loral during the '96 campaign, I think the case against them would have never been drafted.

I know many fine Democrats who are aghast at this corruption and hijacking of the party of Jefferson. The same can be said for the party of Lincoln.

It would make no difference to me if it was the RNC, they are just as complicit in trading contributions for favors. It's how Washington works, and why it truly needs overhaul.

Both current political parties nauseate me. Both of them are consumed with maintaining, enlarging and protecting their own power and control at the cost of liberty.

And that dear Z, is the agenda.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 06, 1999.

Invar:

Thanks for the response, but you still need to tell me what the agenda is. I need it layed out in detail. You seem to have this information and I don't. In my view [which may not be all that accurate], I don't see the government all that organized.

thanks,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

I agree with Don this time. I am suprised at your view though Invar. I think I recall that you oppose the New World Order and corporate domination, so I don't see why you like Microsoft. It is obvious to me anyway that when some businesses reach a certain size they can virtually create a wall blocking smaller businesses from having a chance to compete. If these kinds of monopolistic monolithic mega-corporations are allowed to continue this behavior, we would ultimately end up with only one huge global company that provides every single thing.. computers, gasoline, food, clothing, you name it, all under one roof. Is that really what you want?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

Don,

My comparison of Microsoft with tobacco and gun legislations and lawsuits are completely appropriate. They are not a different animal.

In all these cases, you have a government going after a LEGAL, PRIVATE, BUSINESS to extort money and control over their operations. It is a giant transfer of wealth initiative from the private sector to government, who then masquerades as some kind of benevolent clearing- house to distributing monies and services to the public.

I don't know what the hell you insinuate by using the government to prohibit corporations to exist. Corporations are allowed to exist the same as you are I are allowed to exist and excercize their God-given rights to pursue happiness, including self-protection which is what a corporation exists for. If that pursuit includes acquiring large sums of profit and wealth, then you will have just discovered what America was all about.

From a Constitutional prespective, the federal government has NO RIGHTS to sue a private enterprise. Show me where it is written in there. The federal government was charged with providing for our common military defense and promoting (not creating) the general welfare. That is all.

The federal government has indeed stomped on someone's rights. They have stomped on the rights of a private business to conduct commerce freely. Even if the company is engaged in unethical practices.

To bring the whole power of the federal government to bear on a private company or citizen is a massive abuse of power and will eventually lead to a tyranny of fascism; all industry owned and operated by the federal government.

The tyranny of a corporation is nothing compared to the tyranny of a government. Yet somehow, everyone is comfortable with having their government slam the doors shut on freedoms, just as long as they leave their own personal freedoms alone.

Hawk,

Sorry to disappoint. I do oppose massive government and the emergence of global fascism.

It isn't a matter of whether I like Microsoft or not (I'm a Mac-head anyway), it's the abhorrence of a meddling government that I hate. I can see the precedents being set, and the next domino to fall in the cascading momentum towards global fascism.

I fear a cooperation of industry and government more than I do a monopolistic business. But it's a catch 22. Money and wealth bring power and influence, which leads to political influence and involvement. There's no easy answer to the current problem, save a lawsuit BY PRIVATE COMPANIES AND CITIZENS in the courts, not brought on by our own government. I just oppose the Justice Dept. being used for this, because I fear what industry or business will be targeted next.

Perhaps it's just because of the corruption of this Administration that has me thinking this way. I see where you are going, and I agree with your conclusion, but it is a double-edged sword. If government is used to break apart a business that it targets because of the influence of other businesses it is in partnership with, you will have exactly what you fear.

However it is achieved, by large monolithic mega-corporations exerting pressure on government to gain control and power, or government exterting pressure on on a mega-corporation so it can transfer wealth to gain control and power...the end-result is the same.

What I see here is that now that the Government has tackled Microsoft and succeeded, how emboldened will it become when it decides to break-up and control gun manufacturers, publishing companies and internet providers?

If this was just a lawsuit filed in court by the plaintiffs sans government prosecution, then I have no problem with the ruling. But this was a government prosecution...which somehow always ends up becoming perverted into a deadly weapon.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 06, 1999.

Invar,

Actually I can understand what you're saying now, and I don't think Microsoft is as much of a problem as others. Not sure what Bill Gates has in mind, but I don't think he's interested in acquiring businesses in too many other industries, and his does not seem to be an NWO agenda. The corporations that we really need to watch out for are the ones that control government at will, as the banking sector recently did with this "reform" legislation. Gonna be sorry we didn't protest that move, and the smaller banks and credit unions aren't going to be able to compete for very long before the monster banks swallow them up. Pretty soon we'll have no choice. If you want a place to keep your money or invest or buy insurance, they're going to have all of your personal records and information.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

Hawk:

You should read the Seattle Times, every day.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/

Best wishes,,,,

z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

ZIX4Y7,

Oh really?

Why's that?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

So has anybody gone to see the movie "The Insider" yet?

-- it fits (this@discussion.T), November 06, 1999.

Hit the nail square on the head Hawk.

With all of it.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 06, 1999.

Invar,

>>>My comparison of Microsoft with tobacco and gun legislations and lawsuits are completely appropriate. They are not a different animal.

>>>In all these cases, you have a government going after a LEGAL, PRIVATE, BUSINESS to extort money and control over their operations. It is a giant transfer of wealth initiative from the private sector to government, who then masquerades as some kind of benevolent clearing- house to distributing monies and services to the public.

They are not the same. While I would agree with the gov's motivation in the case of tobaccy and guns, Microsoft's case is clearly one of anti-trust.

>>>I don't know what the hell you insinuate by using the government to prohibit corporations to exist. Corporations are allowed to exist the same as you are I are allowed to exist and excercize their God-given rights to pursue happiness, including self-protection which is what a corporation exists for. If that pursuit includes acquiring large sums of profit and wealth, then you will have just discovered what America was all about.

Really? I didn't need special legislation to exist or exercise my rights. Special legislation was required in order to create corporations. They are exempt from personal liability. Are you? They get special tax breaks. Do you? As a small business owner, you don't hafta tell me what America is all about. There is nothing equal or just about the treatment of corporations as opposed to individuals. Individuals have rights. Corporations have more rights.

I'm not gunna go tit-for-tat with your whole post dude. The government does indeed have the right to sue. The terrible, massive abuse of power the government exercised in breaking up AT&T didn't bring about a fascist state, and I doubt the breakup of Microsoft will result in any such thing.

-- Don Wegner (donfmwyo@earthlink.net), November 07, 1999.

A corporation is an "artificial person", owing its existence to the state (chartered and licensed). Thus, government can do ANYTHING it wants with a corporation, its creature. OTH, individuals are "natural persons" with "rights" outside/above the government's LEGITMATE ability to control.

If Billy Boy wants government to keep hands off, he should have established Microsucks as a sole proprietorship or a partnership.

For the protections to individuals (limited personal liability) afforde by a corporation, thse individuals desiring to do business in a corporate form (a privilege granted by the state), have to give up the rights they would have if they organized as a private business.

I think, along with Ravi Batra, that the increasing agglomeratization of corporations is a tremendous threat to prosperity. AND LIBERTY. I think the prospect of living under effective commercial control by a handful of huge corporations is just as much a threat to liberty as living under the political control of huge governments.

-- A (A@AisA.com), November 07, 1999.

Hawk:

Why, because they tend to document what MS has in mind. I'm sorry to be late but I have been away.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 07, 1999.