Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.fan.bill-gates:1000 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:7807 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:10857Newsgroups: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.miscPath: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!caen!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!richsFrom: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)Subject: Re: Challenge to Microsoft supporters.Message-ID: <1993May17.202143.7830@microsoft.com>Date: 17 May 93 20:21:43 GMTOrganization: Microsoft CorporationReferences: <C6wzv1.CBC@news.rich.bnr.ca> <14822@news.duke.edu>Reply-To: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)Distribution:  usaLines: 13In article <14822@news.duke.edu> kdb@sunbar.mc.duke.edu (Kurt Bollacker) writes:>I agree.  No one ever definitively met my challenge-- only batted around>semantics.  Oh well, I guess things did turn out as I expected.Hmmm.  I gave two examples which matched your objective criteria, and yourresponse was some subjective claptrap about them being 'lame'.  You neverdid counter the fact that those examples fit your objective criteria.One wonders who's playing semantic games, here.-- Rick SchautUUCP:...{uunet | uw-beaver}!microsoft!richsMicrosoft doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for Microsoft.