In article . net,
says...

'jps' and Harry Dumbo Krause just don't like Microsoft
because they're big business, and as
accomplishment-free whiners, they feel they have no
choice but to hate the accomplished.

Your assumptions are, as usual, hate-filled and without basis.

I make my business based on the research and development Microsoft has
funded and brought to market.

While I disagree with some of Bill's tactics and believe he should be
held accountable, without his aggressive pursuit of Microsoft goals the
PC industry would be far behind where it is today.

I think competition is healthy AND he didn't make his fortune by holding
his employees heads under water, like Walmart.

I absolutely love the fact that he's redistributing his personal fortune
to humane projects that'd otherwise be non-existent.

jps

jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...

'jps' and Harry Dumbo Krause just don't like Microsoft
because they're big business, and as
accomplishment-free whiners, they feel they have no
choice but to hate the accomplished.

Your assumptions are, as usual, hate-filled and without basis.


Ball has marbles running around inside his head. All of our computers
run Microsoft operating systems and Microsoft Office application
software. Most of Microsoft's app software is ok, but I really prefer
WordPerfect to WORD, and Mozilla to Internet Explorer and Outlook Express.

This is really fun stuff. The pit viper of Australia accuses me of
leading the cheerleading section for Microsoft and Ball-less says I
don't like Microsoft. Perhaps we can arrange a date between the two of
them. If they mate, they can raise a generation of toothless vipers.



--
Email sent to is never read.

In article ,
says...

Perhaps we can arrange a date between the two of
them. If they mate, they can raise a generation of toothless vipers.

I think their parents have that covered.

jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...


'jps' and Harry Dumbo Krause just don't like Microsoft
because they're big business, and as
accomplishment-free whiners, they feel they have no
choice but to hate the accomplished.


Your assumptions are, as usual, hate-filled and without basis.

My observations are, as usual, emotion free and
absolutely correct.


I make my business based on the research and development Microsoft has
funded and brought to market.

While I disagree with some of Bill's tactics and believe he should be
held accountable, without his aggressive pursuit of Microsoft goals the
PC industry would be far behind where it is today.

I think competition is healthy AND he didn't make his fortune by holding
his employees heads under water, like Walmart.

Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.

In article et,
says...

Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.

Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace. They gain their advantage by squeezing every penny out of
the vendors and the operation, including their own people -- the very
reason they're crushing the competition.

While anyone who runs or observes business can admire Walmart's success,
only those with a conscience would care to look at the real costs
involved. Clearly, you're not one of those folks.

Microsoft succeeds based on superior channel development and marketing
expertise. They compete not by squeezing margins and employees but by
bringing value to the consumer.

If Microsoft did squeeze its employees to the point of them not being
able to make a living wage, you better believe it'd result in an
engineer's union.

jps wrote:

In article et,
says...


Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.

In article . net,
says...
jps wrote:

In article et,
says...


Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.

Because, unless they want to live on welfare and food stamps, there are
few other choices.

Read this and learn something...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec13.html

You'll see a quote from your hallowed Employment Policy Institute about
the fact that jobs being created are "low quality."

jps wrote:
In article . net,
says...

jps wrote:


In article et,
says...



Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.


Because, unless they want to live on welfare and food stamps, there are
few other choices.

Read this and learn something...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec13.html

You'll see a quote from your hallowed Employment Policy Institute about
the fact that jobs being created are "low quality."

Is it better to have a low quality job, or no job at
all, asswipe?

Why don't these people do something to EARN their way
into higher quality jobs?

Labor is just another input into the production
process. There is no reason to treat it any
differently than iron ore or electricity or Post-it
notes. The price for it is set by supply and demand,
just as any other input resource.

Deal with it.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

jps wrote:
In article . net,
says...

jps wrote:


In article et,
says...



Wal-Mart does not hold anyone's head under water.
Wal-Mart's manpower needs are very different from
Microsoft's. Each pays the appropriate wage to attract
the talent they need. Neither is unionized.


Walmart screws people in order to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace.

Wal-Mart doesn't screw anyone. They offer employment,
and people voluntarily take it.


Because, unless they want to live on welfare and food stamps, there are
few other choices.

Read this and learn something...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec13.html

You'll see a quote from your hallowed Employment Policy Institute about
the fact that jobs being created are "low quality."

Is it better to have a low quality job, or no job at
all, asswipe?

Surely you'll find out if and when you finish college and stop living on
your daddy's money.



--
Email sent to is never read.