Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?

[David Theroux]

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 at 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 at vorlon.mit.edu
>>  [mailto:owner-fight-censorship at 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 at vorlon.mit.edu;
>>  cypherpunks at cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L at 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 at well.com> or "Jonathan Wallace" <jw at 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 at 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 at independent.org
http://www.independent.org