Dear Phill, Despite your repeated claims in this regard, we have presented the links to our work so that anyone can review this analysis themselves and make up their own minds. Clearly you have not examined our book by Liebowitz and Margolis, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT (http://independent.org/tii/content/briefs/BriefWLMS.html), and hence we are still waiting for you to so and then indicate how you believe the analysis by Liebowitz and Margolis might be erroneous. Your otherwise objecting to this work simply because you do not agree with the conclusions is hardly the basis for any serious, scientific discussion of the merits of the work. Best regards, David David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
For the simple reason that Theroux has shown no interest at all in debating the substance of his claim.
All that he has done is to repeatedly state that the issue has been decided by 'experts' and published in 'peer reviewed' journals. He clearly does not want to debate the issues with mere mortals.
Phill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [mailto:owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Matthew Gaylor Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:31 PM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker; 'David Theroux' Cc: 'James A. Donald'; 'Declan McCullagh'; 'Paul Spirito'; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; Jim Warren; Jonathan Wallace Subject: Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?
It occurred to me that this would be a good topic for an organized online debate. The results of which could be posted around.
Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com> or "Jonathan Wallace" <jw@bway.net> would make good and fair moderators- Jonathan especially so since he has already participated in a similar debate on my mailing list and on his online zine The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org/ . In that debate- Both participants were lawyers so they wrote rather extensive and good ground rules for the debate. But any trusted third party would work.
A debate such as this will remove any "heat of the moment" commentary and might provide more light than heat?
What do you think?
Regards, Matthew Gaylor-
************************************************************** ************ Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************** ************
-- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org