Charities

[ewerk 26935]

The key word there is business and Microsoft is hardly on a par with those companies who use child labour in their manufacturing, I think you're being deliberately awkward once again.

 

No, but then it is pretty difficult to use child labour in Microsoft's market isn't it? If it were actually possibly to use child sweatshop coding then I wouldn't have been surprised to see it.

 

So are you being "deliberately awkward" in that comparison or "unknowingly dim"?

 

 

My point is that he isn't using child labour, whether it would be possible to do so or not is irrelevant.

[Fop 1]

The key word there is business and Microsoft is hardly on a par with those companies who use child labour in their manufacturing, I think you're being deliberately awkward once again.

 

No, but then it is pretty difficult to use child labour in Microsoft's market isn't it? If it were actually possibly to use child sweatshop coding then I wouldn't have been surprised to see it.

 

So are you being "deliberately awkward" in that comparison or "unknowingly dim"?

 

 

My point is that he isn't using child labour, whether it would be possible to do so or not is irrelevant.

Your point is that you have no point - i.e. you're being deliberately awkward I guess.

[Guest alex]

Fairly obvious what ewerk's point is like.

[manc-mag 1]

It's another bad day at the office for Fop tbh.

[Fop 1]

Fairly obvious what ewerk's point is like.

That microsoft didn't use child labour because they couldn't?

[Fop 1]

It's another bad day at the office for Fop tbh.

I knew you couldn't resist this one forever.

[The Fish 9281]

I stubbed my toe today.

[ewerk 26935]

The key word there is business and Microsoft is hardly on a par with those companies who use child labour in their manufacturing, I think you're being deliberately awkward once again.

 

No, but then it is pretty difficult to use child labour in Microsoft's market isn't it? If it were actually possibly to use child sweatshop coding then I wouldn't have been surprised to see it.

 

So are you being "deliberately awkward" in that comparison or "unknowingly dim"?

 

 

My point is that he isn't using child labour, whether it would be possible to do so or not is irrelevant.

Your point is that you have no point - i.e. you're being deliberately awkward I guess.

 

My point is that Bill Gates hasn't done anything so terrible to be deserving of your 'wrath' or mockery of his fine philanthropic gesture.

[Fop 1]

The key word there is business and Microsoft is hardly on a par with those companies who use child labour in their manufacturing, I think you're being deliberately awkward once again.

 

No, but then it is pretty difficult to use child labour in Microsoft's market isn't it? If it were actually possibly to use child sweatshop coding then I wouldn't have been surprised to see it.

 

So are you being "deliberately awkward" in that comparison or "unknowingly dim"?

 

 

My point is that he isn't using child labour, whether it would be possible to do so or not is irrelevant.

Your point is that you have no point - i.e. you're being deliberately awkward I guess.

 

My point is that Bill Gates hasn't done anything so terrible to be deserving of your 'wrath' or mockery of his fine philanthropic gesture.

 

Actually he has, see my reply to Happyface. He just hasn't used child labour (directly anyway) is all.

[ewerk 26935]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Edited June 30, 2008 by ewerk

[Fop 1]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

[Rob W 0]

I give - but only to charities I know are well run and don't eat all the cash in admin

 

Small local ones normally

[Rob W 0]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

[Happy Face 29]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

 

I think Fop is referring to their tactic of initially flooding the market with their operating system even if it incurred a huge loss, then ensuring that everything they produce was incompatible with competitors products. And the resulting Anti-Trust suit brought against them by their own government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

 

Doesn't even make them as unethical as Enron if you ask me like, but as it effected the nerds, the nerds hate him more than Ian Huntley.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Fairly obvious what ewerk's point is like.

That microsoft didn't use child labour because they couldn't?

No.

[Fop 1]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

 

 

Well the two major court cases they've lost in the USA and the EU for abusing their monopoly for a start.

 

And like I said putting their product well before any 3rd world development - still being carried on in the way the Gates foundation pushes technology as well (or indeed blocking that Prince of Wales Trust donation).

 

Now give me an example of where MS has acted ethically, by all means?

[Fop 1]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

 

I think Fop is referring to their tactic of initially flooding the market with their operating system even if it incurred a huge loss, then ensuring that everything they produce was incompatible with competitors products. And the resulting Anti-Trust suit brought against them by their own government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

 

Doesn't even make them as unethical as Enron if you ask me like, but as it effected the nerds, the nerds hate him more than Ian Huntley.

 

 

Free bundling, threatening suppliers of OEMs unless they only installed their products, actively making sure their products did not work with competitors.

Even now after initially being told they needed to be broken up into 3 separate companies in the US court case (fortunately they had enough money to buy their way out of that) they still go on with refusing to allow other companies access to needed code (OS code that is, not Word code or whatever).

 

Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field, right down to profiteering and exploiting the 3rd world (repeatedly).

 

 

 

 

The irony is (as usual) you lot think I "hate" Bill Gates (do you as usual think Bill Gates slept with my mother or something? ). I admire him in a purely business sense, but out side of that specific sense he becomes a lot less admirably - or more succinctly I'm just being honest and fair about him is all.

[Fop 1]

Fairly obvious what ewerk's point is like.

That microsoft didn't use child labour because they couldn't?

No.

Yup.

[Guest alex]

Fairly obvious what ewerk's point is like.

That microsoft didn't use child labour because they couldn't?

No.

Yup.

I'll put in terms you might understand then.

Microsoft not having done anything as unethical as using child labour on a mass scale = fact.

The only reason Microsoft do not use child labour is because they can't = pure speculation on your part.

Edited July 1, 2008 by alex

[Fop 1]

Fairly obvious what ewerk's point is like.

That microsoft didn't use child labour because they couldn't?

No.

Yup.

I'll put in terms you might understand then.

Microsoft not having done anything as unethical as using child labour on a mass scale = fact.

The only reason Microsoft do not use child labour is because they can't = pure speculation on your part.

 

Microsoft have done a lot of unethical things to the 3rd world = fact.

 

Microsoft can't use child labour to develop their software = fact (unless you happen to know an enclave of child geniuses enslaved by MS somewhere - although it's hard to rule it out in other ways as with many companies).

 

Microsoft "not" using child labour has nothing to do with how unethical their business models is, nor the damage they have done, as is "not" using nuclear weapons to further it or "not" cloning alien killing machines = fact.

[Happy Face 29]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

 

I think Fop is referring to their tactic of initially flooding the market with their operating system even if it incurred a huge loss, then ensuring that everything they produce was incompatible with competitors products. And the resulting Anti-Trust suit brought against them by their own government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

 

Doesn't even make them as unethical as Enron if you ask me like, but as it effected the nerds, the nerds hate him more than Ian Huntley.

 

 

Free bundling, threatening suppliers of OEMs unless they only installed their products, actively making sure their products did not work with competitors.

Even now after initially being told they needed to be broken up into 3 separate companies in the US court case (fortunately they had enough money to buy their way out of that) they still go on with refusing to allow other companies access to needed code (OS code that is, not Word code or whatever).

 

Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field, right down to profiteering and exploiting the 3rd world (repeatedly).

 

 

 

 

The irony is (as usual) you lot think I "hate" Bill Gates (do you as usual think Bill Gates slept with my mother or something? ). I admire him in a purely business sense, but out side of that specific sense he becomes a lot less admirably - or more succinctly I'm just being honest and fair about him is all.

 

I posted the link, by repeating the stuff I've already linked to you're telling me nothing I don't already know about how Microsoft has achieved market domination.

 

Now that you've backtracked from "Microsoft is built upon the most "unethical" (i.e. most ruthless, illegal, destructive, and self-centred) business model around." to "Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field" I think your assessment is a little fairer.

[Fop 1]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

 

I think Fop is referring to their tactic of initially flooding the market with their operating system even if it incurred a huge loss, then ensuring that everything they produce was incompatible with competitors products. And the resulting Anti-Trust suit brought against them by their own government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

 

Doesn't even make them as unethical as Enron if you ask me like, but as it effected the nerds, the nerds hate him more than Ian Huntley.

 

 

Free bundling, threatening suppliers of OEMs unless they only installed their products, actively making sure their products did not work with competitors.

Even now after initially being told they needed to be broken up into 3 separate companies in the US court case (fortunately they had enough money to buy their way out of that) they still go on with refusing to allow other companies access to needed code (OS code that is, not Word code or whatever).

 

Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field, right down to profiteering and exploiting the 3rd world (repeatedly).

 

 

 

 

The irony is (as usual) you lot think I "hate" Bill Gates (do you as usual think Bill Gates slept with my mother or something? ). I admire him in a purely business sense, but out side of that specific sense he becomes a lot less admirably - or more succinctly I'm just being honest and fair about him is all.

 

I posted the link, by repeating the stuff I've already linked to you're telling me nothing I don't already know about how Microsoft has achieved market domination.

 

Now that you've backtracked from "Microsoft is built upon the most "unethical" (i.e. most ruthless, illegal, destructive, and self-centred) business model around." to "Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field" I think your assessment is a little fairer.

 

 

Nope I've not back tracked at all, Microsoft are built upon the most "unethical" (i.e. most ruthless, illegal, destructive, and self-centred) business model around. If they were in a position to use child labour or kick indigenous people off their land (or whatever other example you want to make up) to further their goals I'm sure they would.

 

It's funny but you clearly don't realise how many companies now base the way they operate on the methods MS forged, but your ignorance is not something to be unexpected I guess.

[Fop 1]

Here comes manc-fop(lite). (never mind he 'd it )

Edited July 1, 2008 by Fop

[Happy Face 29]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

 

I think Fop is referring to their tactic of initially flooding the market with their operating system even if it incurred a huge loss, then ensuring that everything they produce was incompatible with competitors products. And the resulting Anti-Trust suit brought against them by their own government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

 

Doesn't even make them as unethical as Enron if you ask me like, but as it effected the nerds, the nerds hate him more than Ian Huntley.

 

 

Free bundling, threatening suppliers of OEMs unless they only installed their products, actively making sure their products did not work with competitors.

Even now after initially being told they needed to be broken up into 3 separate companies in the US court case (fortunately they had enough money to buy their way out of that) they still go on with refusing to allow other companies access to needed code (OS code that is, not Word code or whatever).

 

Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field, right down to profiteering and exploiting the 3rd world (repeatedly).

 

 

 

 

The irony is (as usual) you lot think I "hate" Bill Gates (do you as usual think Bill Gates slept with my mother or something? ). I admire him in a purely business sense, but out side of that specific sense he becomes a lot less admirably - or more succinctly I'm just being honest and fair about him is all.

 

I posted the link, by repeating the stuff I've already linked to you're telling me nothing I don't already know about how Microsoft has achieved market domination.

 

Now that you've backtracked from "Microsoft is built upon the most "unethical" (i.e. most ruthless, illegal, destructive, and self-centred) business model around." to "Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field" I think your assessment is a little fairer.

 

 

Nope I've not back tracked at all, Microsoft are built upon the most "unethical" (i.e. most ruthless, illegal, destructive, and self-centred) business model around. If they were in a position to use child labour or kick indigenous people off their land (or whatever other example you want to make up) to further their goals I'm sure they would.

 

It's funny but you clearly don't realise how many companies now base the way they operate on the methods MS forged, but your ignorance is not something to be unexpected I guess.

 

 

But they aren't and they don't.

 

[Fop 1]

I did read it, the result is that you're still talking shite, quelle surprise!

Aye like Bill Gates and Microsoft NOT using alien death clones, mind control or the nuclear option. Like I said your point was pointless and you were just trying to be intentionally awkward.

 

 

If you want to try to list how Microsoft's business model was/is ethical, by all means do so.

 

 

what's unethical about it Fop ?

 

It's a business, it makes money and it doesn't do it by making guns or ciggies, bribing dictators in Africa, running sweatshops in India, forcing junk food on kids or screwing up the environment -

 

puts them well ahead of the pack in my book

 

I think Fop is referring to their tactic of initially flooding the market with their operating system even if it incurred a huge loss, then ensuring that everything they produce was incompatible with competitors products. And the resulting Anti-Trust suit brought against them by their own government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

 

Doesn't even make them as unethical as Enron if you ask me like, but as it effected the nerds, the nerds hate him more than Ian Huntley.

 

 

Free bundling, threatening suppliers of OEMs unless they only installed their products, actively making sure their products did not work with competitors.

Even now after initially being told they needed to be broken up into 3 separate companies in the US court case (fortunately they had enough money to buy their way out of that) they still go on with refusing to allow other companies access to needed code (OS code that is, not Word code or whatever).

 

Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field, right down to profiteering and exploiting the 3rd world (repeatedly).

 

 

 

 

The irony is (as usual) you lot think I "hate" Bill Gates (do you as usual think Bill Gates slept with my mother or something? ). I admire him in a purely business sense, but out side of that specific sense he becomes a lot less admirably - or more succinctly I'm just being honest and fair about him is all.

 

I posted the link, by repeating the stuff I've already linked to you're telling me nothing I don't already know about how Microsoft has achieved market domination.

 

Now that you've backtracked from "Microsoft is built upon the most "unethical" (i.e. most ruthless, illegal, destructive, and self-centred) business model around." to "Microsoft have operated every bit as badly as they could in their specific field" I think your assessment is a little fairer.

 

 

Nope I've not back tracked at all, Microsoft are built upon the most "unethical" (i.e. most ruthless, illegal, destructive, and self-centred) business model around. If they were in a position to use child labour or kick indigenous people off their land (or whatever other example you want to make up) to further their goals I'm sure they would.

 

It's funny but you clearly don't realise how many companies now base the way they operate on the methods MS forged, but your ignorance is not something to be unexpected I guess.

 

 

But they aren't and they don't.

 

 

Which again is a non-point. Like saying Hilter didn't murder many black people so therefore he quite liked them.