Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!husc4!hadeishi
From: hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Politics
Message-ID: <2497@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jul-87 13:38:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.2497
Posted: Thu Jul  9 13:38:31 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 06:10:52 EDT
References: 
Sender: news@husc6.UUCP
Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Followup-To: misc.misc
Organization: (But Seriously now, folks . . :-)
Lines: 70
Keywords: black holes, Boy George, leafy green plants, mailboxes
Summary: Warning: you are about to enter . . . the Irrelevant Zone

>
>Actually, this is closer to the typical left-wing style of negotiation
>"we think it's bad, make it go away!"

	I suggest you take a look at the very interesting book
_Getting to YES_, recently published (it should be in Cody's or
one of those stores.)  It is a very penetrating look at the
typical styles of aggresive negotiation used by both sides very
commonly in this country, and the terrible shortcomings of this style.
Although the two sides may be on "opposite" sides of the coin,
they tend to be on the "same side" culturally, particularly when it
comes to negotiation style.  Thus I stick by my assertion.

>Since I tend to be a conservative when it comes to economics, that's
>not surprising. I've yet to hear a good argument along the lines of
>"forcing everyone to do this means fewer people get hurt, at small
>inconvenience to everyone." The correct answer is almost always
>"consider it evolution in action." That includes copy protection.

	I do not quite understand what you mean by "consider it
evolution in action."  I take it you would be in disagreement with
state or federally mandated maternity leave regulations (for companies
with over 15 employees), most of OSHA, automobile safety and pollution
control regulations, nationalized medical insurance, welfare (as opposed
to private charity), and so on, all of which involve sacrifices on the
part of the whole for the benefit of a few, or the protection of people or
prevention of certain injustices.  Most of which, by the way, I feel
are justified in principle, in particular the health and safety
regulations.  It is certainly true that the laws in general restrict
our liberties for the sake of the general welfare, in many cases
at the inconvenience of much of the population.  And yet you do not
advocate anarchy, I presume.  Do you feel that all of the aforementioned
systems and programs be abolished or not enacted?  Given your
philosophical position it would seem so.  Yet many of these things
I feel are well justified, not to mention left-wing.  (By the way,
please do not continue to assume that you are the only person with
left-influenced political ideas.)

><>Ah, so you think the Amiga is a game machine, then. Or you want the
><>populace to percieve it that way.
><
><	Non sequitur.
>
>No, it isn't, you keep yammering about games. If the Amiga isn't a
>game machine, then game makers should be a small part of the market.
>If they are an important part of the market, then it's a game machine.

	Huh?  The original discussion was about CP (which is over now)
and my argument happened to be that CP was tolerable in game software.
Thus my yammering about games.  Not only do I not want the populace
to perceive the Amiga as a game machine, such an interpretation in
no way follows from my discussion of CP.  Also, it is _your_ definition
of game machine that you use above, not mine, and, most likely, not the
"populace"'s.

>[ I ] didn't try to play on peoples moral sense

	Hoo hoo, hee hee, ha ha.

>About the worst I've seen is people claiming that other people have
>quit buying software from companies because they keep getting burned.
>That's legitimate information to pass on about a company.
>
>