Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

David,

	You still don't get it. 'Read my book' is not a valid move in a debate. If
you were to stand up in front of the Oxford Union and say 'my book proves
the case entirely' then sat down with no further elaboration you lose the
debate.

	You introduced the motion, you try to defend it. Nothing in any of the
references I have followed advances your claim in my view. Moreover since
you have not addressed my counter thesis or any of the specific objections
raised so far I don't see how raising further factual points would advance
the argument.

	At the moment the debate has moved onto what could be quite an interesting
digression on the counter-strategies employed to avoid lock-in.

	My principal objection however, as with Andrew is your apparent belief that
those who attempt to influence public policy do not have to justify their
theories to the public. Restating your conclusions does not constitute a
justification of them.

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Theroux [mailto:DTheroux at independent.org]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 9:02 PM
> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> 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'; 'Matthew Gaylor'
> Subject: RE: Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?
>
>
> 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
>