2 ms·

> I think you've misread my comments. No, I really didn't. If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask wh

by stale2002 5y ago

> I think you've misread my comments. No, I really didn't. If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask why/how/when their actions are illegal. So yes, by asking me why/how/when their actions are illegal, you are disagreeing with me. Thats what it means to ask that. We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal. > So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. When you say "I don't know how", that is a disagreement with me. You are saying that you do not see how their actions are illegal. And my response, to you casting doubt on their actions being illegal (By saying that you "do not see how" they are illegal), is that I will show you why the actions are illegal, in a couple months. And then you can re-evaluate your previous confusion as to "not seeing how" their actions are illegal, when that court decision is made. I am pretty sure that I am right on this. And I'll be able to show this to you, when the court decision happens, and you can understand why you were incorrect to doubt that their actions are illegal. > Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be? By the fact that you are saying things like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'." You are saying that you do not know how Apple's actions could be described as illegal, and I am saying that the court case will show you how. Thats what it means to say stuff like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'" It means that you don't think that their actions are illegal. I also see that you are saying things like "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", which is implying that you don't think that they are engaging in illegal/anti-trust behavior. But like I said, this will all be settled in a couple months, and you will be able to see why it was incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal. You will be able to look back, and understand why it is incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 5y ago
Sorry I still think you're operating under a misunderstanding of the thread. > We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal. Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is or should be illegal or not? Unless there's new info. The Salem Witches were found guilty in a court, for example. Maybe there's a parallel there? A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > Why would the court's opinion change my What it would change is how you "don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. " Once the court trial is over, you will know "how" it should be described as illegal, as before, you were incorrect on not being able to say why it was illegal. And what it will do is help you understand why comments that you make such as "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", that incorrectly attempt to imply that Apple is not engaging in anti-competitive practices, is an incorrect thing to imply. > A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt. Ah, so instead of saying that you may not really understand how anti-trust law works, you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged, if the court rules against Apple in any way? Anti-trust law is not particularly controversial, also.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged You're just inventing random things that I don't think and haven't said. I don't know know where you got 'rigged' from for example. That's not a quote from me or an intelligent interpretation of what I've said. If you find yourself constantly replying 'so you're saying' or 'so you'll say' stop and think why you think you need to rephrase everything and speculate on what the other person may say rather than going off directly what was actually said in order to make a point. I don't think you're arguing in good faith here or actually want to understand other opinions - you seem pretty intent on deliberately misinterpreting as strongly as possible - so I'll leave you to it.
    - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chrisseaton 5y ago

Sorry I still think you're operating under a misunderstanding of the thread. > We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal. Why would the court's opinion change my moral opinion on whether something is or should be illegal or not? Unless there's new info. The Salem Witches were found guilty in a court, for example. Maybe there's a parallel there? A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt.

stale2002 5y ago
> Why would the court's opinion change my What it would change is how you "don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. " Once the court trial is over, you will know "how" it should be described as illegal, as before, you were incorrect on not being able to say why it was illegal. And what it will do is help you understand why comments that you make such as "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", that incorrectly attempt to imply that Apple is not engaging in anti-competitive practices, is an incorrect thing to imply. > A bit of an hysterical and morally unjust witch hunt. Ah, so instead of saying that you may not really understand how anti-trust law works, you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged, if the court rules against Apple in any way? Anti-trust law is not particularly controversial, also.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > you are going to say that the whole court system was rigged You're just inventing random things that I don't think and haven't said. I don't know know where you got 'rigged' from for example. That's not a quote from me or an intelligent interpretation of what I've said. If you find yourself constantly replying 'so you're saying' or 'so you'll say' stop and think why you think you need to rephrase everything and speculate on what the other person may say rather than going off directly what was actually said in order to make a point. I don't think you're arguing in good faith here or actually want to understand other opinions - you seem pretty intent on deliberately misinterpreting as strongly as possible - so I'll leave you to it.
  - 5y ago