>This is really wacky. I am arguing with people's imaginations. Just
write one. It is a little XML file. It works.

No it doesn't. I'm using it on IE6 on build 2481. Maybe it works on your
build there, but because you work at Microsoft you get to see stuff we
can't.

>It works on shipping
>product.

We're talking about IE6, which behaves MUCH DIFFERENT than Office XP.

>>Bill Gates won't get pissed. Why speculate when you can
just do it? Look at the TEN LINE XML file I wrote for Dave. It puts
Userland as the FIRST CHOICE when you highlight Microsoft. Now add
your favorite Slashdot links.

No it doesn't. Maybe you need to come to my house and demo this for me. I
followed your directions exactly and I still only get Microsoft's links in
IE6.

>>Actually, if you have looked at any MSDN articles I cannot see how
you would think that. At the bottom of any MSDN feature is an area
where anyone can post comments (and anonymously) that are rendered
directly in the page. There is always anti-Microsoft invective
posted in these areas, and I don't see anyone getting bothered by
it.

Right. This was MICROSOFT'S CHOICE TO ADD (and it certainly isn't on every
page -- look at http://www.microsoft.com, for instance).

You are FORCING ME to take comments on EVERY SINGLE PAGE, whether I like it
or not. You are a monopoly. I am not when I write a comment on an MSDN
comments page.

>>I also don't see any other companies with this sort of
openness.

Huh? Almost ever ZDNET article has the same feature MSDN has. And, even my
company has a public newsgroup where you can come and call Fawcette all
sorts of names (and, visit our news://news.devx.com/talk.editors.vbpj forum
and you'll see that our customers are taking us to task for many things).


>> Imagine if Microsoft told the world "you can put your own little
>> ads under each word in Fawcette's magazines." I'm sure those of you
>That's not what smart tags do.

Sorry, but that's EXACTLY what they do.

>> would really love that feature, but as an owner of content, I'd
>You own the content. Smart tags do not change the content.

Sorry. They CHANGE MY CONTENT WITH new "underlines" that I DID NOT PUT
THERE!!!! That's changing my content. How can you get away lying to me like
this? Have you even tried IE6's SmartTags?

>> Fine. Don't ship ANY SmartTags implemented. Include the feature,
>> but make a promise that Microsoft won't ship their own by default.
>That doesn't make much sense to me..

Yeah. You want your free advertising. Now I see you enjoy aiming the
monopolist gun at my head and pulling the trigger. Sorry dude. But these ARE
THAT EVIL and if you don't stop drinking the Microsoft kool aid, you will
end up making horrible decisions for Microsoft.

>>I personally was posting about smart tags at least 6 months ago, and
the smart tag SDK has been out that long.

Well, we didn't see it. I certainly didn't pay attention to it because I
didn't see the implementation until a Windows XP beta two weeks ago. I
didn't care about the ones in Office. It was only when you put them into the
browser that I realized exactly what you are doing to me.

>You already said this would be OK so long as Microsoft did not
>provide any smart tags. So you are saying it is OK for the user to
>have any helper they want, so long as it is not a helper that you do
>not want?

I really do not want ANYONE putting content on my page that I did not
approve. If I want to add SmartTags to my own site, I think that might be a
cool feature, if it's an "opt-in" feature. Here I can't even opt-out. Right
now it's free advertising for Microsoft. It is a monopolist taking advantage
of me.

>Just curious, what if a customer told you "hold on, don't kick him
>out, I want to hear what he has to say?" Would you kick out the
>customer too?

I actually had a case where a competitor came in my store and was soliciting
other customers. I kicked that competitor out. The customer understood that
that was unfair business practices.

>In any case, I can see cases where you would kick out
>a competitor in fear that he would be spying, or kick out a
>competitor who was disturbing your customers, or as you say,
>advertising openly. This analogy seems *really* weak though.

It's really weak only to a monopolist who thinks its his right to walk into
any store he wants and tell all customers about his superior services.

Oh, wait. You work for a monopoly. There are no other stores that aren't
owned by Microsoft. Apple? Yeah, right. Corel? Uh huh. Linux? Give me a
break (although all your big 18-inch guns seem to be aimed at that at the
moment).

>Well, if you kicked out my wife I would certainly not buy anything --
>so are you saying that you would be happy with a way to make your
>site reject any user who enabled smart tags?

I might have lost one customer, but I would have kept the integrity of my
business. Oh, and one day, I did kick a woman out of my store. She came back
two hours later and bought $3000 worth of camera equipment (cause she knew
she was wrong).

>That seems like
>declaring war on your users.

No. Let me be very clear about this. It's war on Microsoft getting free
advertising that they didn't pay for.

>Seems like having a policy of kicking
>out anyone from your store who comes in accompanied by a person of a
>skin color that you don't like.

You just moved the debate from reasonable to one of not being reasonable.
You are now officially an asshole in my book. Case closed end of discussion.
Fuck you.