3 ms·

I am more worried about the grammatical mistakes I see in my post than your objection. Why? Well I would hope that if we were talking about something else and I

by drats 17y ago

I am more worried about the grammatical mistakes I see in my post than your objection. Why? Well I would hope that if we were talking about something else and I said "convicted killer" you wouldn't fly into a exclamation marked rage over the fact I should have said "convicted murderer" because there are circumstances under which it is legal to kill people. I think it's pretty clear what I was saying in that post. But you are technically correct in that it's theoretically possible to have a company that is a monopoly and does not abuse that power, although I cannot think of any examples in the real world where corporations in such a situation behave. Allenbrunson has the rest in his reply to you. And before anyone else objects regarding the details of the EU case[1] it sometimes use different terms as the EU is not quite a state yet but I'd argue "convicted" captures the meaning there too. [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7392949.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7392949.stm

sid0 17y ago
> it sometimes use different terms as the EU is not quite a state yet but I'd argue "convicted" captures the meaning there too. It only captures it if the EU considers it to be a crime. Does it? (genuinely curious)
- drats 17y ago
  Look you aren't "genuinely curious" you are being a total wanker. Wiktionary definition: "A specific act committed in violation of the law." Wikipedia (the sentence before you earlier nitpick quote): "Crime is the breach of one or more rules or laws for which some governing authority, via mechanisms such as police power, may ultimately prescribe a conviction." Wordnet: " an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act" and "an evil act not necessarily punishable by law" N.B. The definitions from Wordnet, my uses passes BOTH. So it seems that if a governing body passes a law or regulation against a certain activity and then the government (through whatever process) finds someone in violation and sanctions them, you don't want to call it a crime (despite this being well within the broadest definitions), you want to have a big cry. Well sorry buddy, this isn't a court of law, this is the English language. You are the reason people hate lawyers.
  - sid0 17y ago
    > Wordnet: " an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act" You conveniently elided the part that says "(criminal law)" before that. Who's the one being intellectually dishonest here? > and "an evil act not necessarily punishable by law" ... my uses passes BOTH Great, you made a value judgment. I disagree with your value judgment. I don't think Microsoft's actions were evil enough to be called crimes.

by drats 17y ago

sid0 17y ago

> it sometimes use different terms as the EU is not quite a state yet but I'd argue "convicted" captures the meaning there too. It only captures it if the EU considers it to be a crime. Does it? (genuinely curious)

drats 17y ago
Look you aren't "genuinely curious" you are being a total wanker. Wiktionary definition: "A specific act committed in violation of the law." Wikipedia (the sentence before you earlier nitpick quote): "Crime is the breach of one or more rules or laws for which some governing authority, via mechanisms such as police power, may ultimately prescribe a conviction." Wordnet: " an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act" and "an evil act not necessarily punishable by law" N.B. The definitions from Wordnet, my uses passes BOTH. So it seems that if a governing body passes a law or regulation against a certain activity and then the government (through whatever process) finds someone in violation and sanctions them, you don't want to call it a crime (despite this being well within the broadest definitions), you want to have a big cry. Well sorry buddy, this isn't a court of law, this is the English language. You are the reason people hate lawyers.
- sid0 17y ago
  > Wordnet: " an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act" You conveniently elided the part that says "(criminal law)" before that. Who's the one being intellectually dishonest here? > and "an evil act not necessarily punishable by law" ... my uses passes BOTH Great, you made a value judgment. I disagree with your value judgment. I don't think Microsoft's actions were evil enough to be called crimes.