Re: Beta anti spyware
From: Shenan Stanley (news_helper_at_hushmail.com)
Date: 02/20/05
- Next message: Shenan Stanley: "Re: Beta anti spyware"
- Previous message: Sidney: "Re: Problems with an Outside Threat who is accessing my computer I"
- In reply to: Philly lawyer: "Re: Beta anti spyware"
- Next in thread: Tom Pepper Willett: "Re: Beta anti spyware"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:24:45 -0600
Comments inline and at the end..
Philly lawyer wrote:
> Did you take a look at the Micorsoft page that is directed toward the
> average consumer? Well, check it out:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx
Yes - and if you read up and see he word (beta) so much - one would assume
human curiosity would tempt you figure out what it means. If not, again the
site to download (linked to when you decide the marketing convinced you to
get the software) is still the very concise site I mentioned - the last one
you see before you get the application. It has a very bold section
mentioning testing and no support. Not reading that was a conscience
choice - made off an assumption.
> This is the page that the orignal e-mail had a link to. If this is
> not intended to induce trust in Microsoft's product, then I don't
> know what is. And isn't that what marketing is all about? The fact
> that there is the brief paragraph to which you refer on the actual
> download page does nothing to change my opinion of how Microsoft is
> presenting this product to the average consumer. That paragraph is
> not detailed enough to act as a sufficient counterweight to what has
> gone before.
I never said their advertising methods did not need adjusting - I simply
said that if a consumer is willing to put something on their computer
without fully understanding it - that is their poor judgment.
> And excuse me, but telling me to "check your credit reports to see
> who else is you," telling me to look things up in the dictionary,
> etc. is indeed gratuitously and personally nasty, not argumentative.
Yes - just like any lawyer would do when presenting their case - to shock
and awe - grab attention and prove their point in the most caustic and
evident way possible. There is a certain undeniable reliability to teaching
by bluntness - it gets the point across in the fastest way possible an grabs
the attention long enough to get the full explanation out there.
> And you were not the only one. I'm really amazed that you and others
> are so defensive of Microsoft or maybe you take my comments as a
> personal attack on computer people in general. I don't get it.
First off, Microsoft could disappear off the planet - I could care less. It
is just another software company - albeit a larger one. As for taking your
comments as a personal attack on computer people - no - you are assuming I
am a computer person.. Assuming is what got you to make these comments
originally You didn't (until later) go back an read the "fine print" as you
put it to discover the status (testing) of the software. I pointed out
quite clearly for you that it was not "fine print" - but a bold-faced
section that is on the very last page you see before actually getting the
software.
> Anyway, enough of this--I've got better things to do than continue to
> argue about whether Microsoft is negligently or deliberately
> misleading its customres, whether I'm just stupid, whether you and
> others are nasty and oh so superior to us non- computer folk, etc.
> I'm throwing in the towel on this one.
Yes - nasty comments were made.
I cannot imagine that is a unique situation for you.
As for having better things to do, don't you believe those who might help
you also have better things to do and this is done on a voluntary basis out
of the kindness of their hearts (pro-bono if you will) - thus having a
discussion with said people and presenting your expertise as a lawyer - not
as an advertising expert - might be useful?
What - legally - was done incorrectly? Burying the fact this is a test in
small print somewhere? Like every warranty or lawyer-produced contract I
have ever seen - buried in unknown terminology (at east to a legal layman.)
You are obviously not stupid - I am not even implying that - I am stating
that as a whole it is "buyer beware" always - especially where the Internet
and software that THEY (the consumers) install on their computer and if they
choose not to fully understand what they are installing - it is their fault.
I don't expect you to know everything about computers, no more than you
expect me to know everything about the law.
History is full of the foolish who did not look before leaping - that does
not make them stupid - just ignorant of their situation and lacking (perhaps
just at that moment) the common sense that would lead one down the path of
knowledge needed to actually make the decision they already made.
Was I nasty before - it could be considered that way - yes.
Were you nasty before - it could be considered that way - yes.
Am I protecting computer people or Microsoft? No - I am presenting that
common sense and research can prevent the majority of the problems presented
in this discussion and most others.
-- <- Shenan -> -- The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are getting into before you jump in with both feet.
- Next message: Shenan Stanley: "Re: Beta anti spyware"
- Previous message: Sidney: "Re: Problems with an Outside Threat who is accessing my computer I"
- In reply to: Philly lawyer: "Re: Beta anti spyware"
- Next in thread: Tom Pepper Willett: "Re: Beta anti spyware"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
