Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
My whole problem with your stance, pwalker, is not that I think you're an Apple fanboy--I believe you when you say it has nothing to do with Apple, per se. My problem is that you believe your stance to be more grounded in fact, and/or "legal theory" and hence more unbiased than other's. When in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Your stance (just like everybody's) is based on idealistic personal conviction. You've as much as admitted (here and in many other threads) that you believe government should should stay out of the business world. And because of that idealistic socio-political/economic philosophy, you give more weight to the expert opinions of those who agree with your ideals and ignore the opinions of those who don't. Saying you're more concerned with points of law doesn't actually make your stance based on points of law.
Let's leave the (fan|hate) boys out of it entirely. Of those who are left (and who are not qualified anti-trust experts--such as ourselves): most of those who agree with Judge Cote, do so because they believe the preponderance of evidence proves illegal collusion (under existing anti-trust law). Those who disagree with Judge Cote, do so because they "believe" the government never should have had the right to prosecute in the first place. In other words; they hurl themselves at evidence based on that bias.
So neither of us are more (or less) on the side of "facts" or "law." We're both on the side of our personal convictions--I'm just not pretending my convictions are more objective than other's.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrscoach
I've read several threads in the past where pwalker8 states his views. I support his right to his views. What I have a problem with is his claim, constantly, to have supplied links in the past and refusal to "repost" those links. The one place I remember him talking about getting material was behind a paywall and he refused to even quote from it because he would get into trouble. I went back to see if I had missed something while reading the earlier threads, and did not see these many links he says he supplied, so I won't waste my time again.
Now he talks about ONE book that espouses a theory and seems to talk down to us for not having read it because it is specialized and expensive and, evidently, we probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
Condescending. That's how he comes across to me, anyway. He evidently knows more than anyone else so why argue? (That last was sarcasm, BTW)
|
Two posts that sum up this whole debate with Pwalker PERFECTLY! It will never matter what we say to him, he has on his rose colored glasses and lives in his own special little world rather than in reality.
When he provides a link to his law degree and specialty in antitrust law, then he might have a leg to stand on. Until then don't listen to a word he types.
