Leave Microsoft Alone!

[NerO]

Yes they are a monopoly, but Microsoft shouldn't be punished. Yes, they
used "dirty" tactics, but who said Life's fair? Because of Microsoft's ingenious

tactics they ruined out competition. It's about the "survival of the fittest".

Microsoft has proven that they deserve to be #1. Though they have a

dominance in the OS market they do not overprice Windows. I went to the

store the other day and saw Redhat linux for 70 bucks. Windows 98 Second

Edition is 80 bucks. Wow, Microsoft is really abusing its monopoly power.


Who cares if Microsoft integrated Windows and its browser. It's called

competition. I mean, no one in there right mind would recommend the

competition. Could you see Aol endorsing Microsoft Network? Windows is

there product and they can do whatever they want with it. So should we now

make AOL endorse MSN since AOL owns 19 million members. Are they a

monopoly? No, but it all comes down to competition, and people should stop

babying/crying. Leave Microsoft alone.


America is all about Free Enterprise. The Government is holding Microsoft back, and I think the Government is ABUSING IT'S POWER not Microsoft!


"People think Microsoft is abusing it's power, in actuality the Government is abusing it's Power." -Me

[Nathan]

Interesting thoughts here. I wonder how many REALLY realize what you are saying. You make some very good points on a few things.

This is a VERY difficult situation here. While we have our grips about Windows (which are many), I don't think we, as a nation, would not be as competitive had it not been for Microsoft. I may not approve of some of what they do, but Windows works. And the times it doesn't, well I wonder if it's the fault of some poorly written software.

However, I think the future looks bright because we probably have some competition now from Linux and other systems. Time will tell. But here is another thought. What happens if Bill and his key people leave the company? How long do you think we will last if they quit? While some here will rejoice over it, I was thinking about the economy in the long run. Most of America is tighted to Windows. And at this point, I don't think Linux or the other systems can jump in and make up the difference for businesses without a HUGE investment that many companies can't afford.

[deep_sky]

NerO......
Did you not read anything in the findings of fact? The fact that Microsoft has been acting in its own interest to snuff other potential vendors of OS, software, and such out of existence so that it can tighten its hold on the home pc market is disgusting. It should not be about competition and who can make the most money. It should be about providing a quality product to your customers. If your product is good quality, then you should not have to use your influence to force other companies to comply to your standards. The fact that Microsoft has done so to excess says to me that they do not feel confident that they are selling quality products and are insecure enough that they have to go bash other companies. True competion would be several companies offering comparable products at roughly the same price and quality. 80 bucks for win98se is for the upgrade not the entire operating system. the 70 is for the entire linux os. Tell ME that those are equivalent prices. I do not think so. It just so happens that MS has an easy to install pc os and linux is not, so people buy ms for the ease of use. and I bet that ms has worked real hard to keep it that way......

[KillerBug]

The boxed version of Red Hat 6.0 is to make contributions to the company. They do sell the CD-ROM alone for under $5 to get their name out and to gain some market share, even if they do not make anything off it. You can donwload it off the internet, you cannot even download an Alpha pre-release windows unless you are a tester. Be the way, have you even seen tthe kinds of features Linux has in it, Red Hat Linux 6.0 boxed is like buying Windows NT 4.0 server boxed. If you can even get access to it, NT 4.0 server is several hundered dolars minimum, vs. $70 boxed red Hat, or free of the internet. Compairing Windows 98, a workstation operating system, and Red Hat 6.0, a super scalable operation system, supporting multi-processors and even boweff, so lets see what you are saying:

M$ is selling a bicycle for $10 more than red Hat sells its super sports car.

[ANTONIO E GUERRA]

As you all remember, Dr Dos was probably a better dos than Microsoft's and Xerox was really responsible for windows. In the good old days I used to run a non Microsoft windows environment called Geos and it was more reliable than all windows. It is convenient to remember that Os/2 was really destroyed by Microsoft's tactics and pressures. Nowadays programmers and users need to look for other alternatives because there should be something more out there than the Microsoft way. Hopefully there will be some other choices like Linux applications, Beos or even Mac/os. At the end the customers will get the benefit of an open market and perhaps open source.

[codybear]

Bill himself admitted that apple had a better os than microsoft but did not have the key people to get it to market before microsoft did windows because he bought them for a price...he then pushed to the max and made himself a billionare in the process as well as intregrating windows into the mainstream global pc market....quite a task.....sure he used unfair tactics and his methods of doing so in a word "sucked"...but we are here today and can do nothing about yesterday or what happened then...just let the next Bill Gates who very well might be in this very forum...let him learn from this and use his or her knowledge for the good of all mankind and not succumb to the greed of the allmighty dollar or peso or whaetever...learn and become wiser from his experience....

[Target]

Nero, obviously you are a Microsoft product fan, and with that I have no issues. I too am a Windows user, and though I have my gripes about it, for me its the best game in town right now.

I do however think that your views on their business practices, monopoly definitions, and comparisons to other companies are somewhat narrow and are preventing you from seeing this situation in an objective light.

In your first sentence you admittedly state that Microsoft is a monopoly. Why is it that you don't feel they should be punished? Is it because you like and enjoy using their products? Or because you somehow feel that we can selectively exempt companies from laws that were enacted to protect the public and other businesses from unfair practices.

Granted, nobody said life was fair (or business for that matter)......but the laws, morals, and rules we live by are in place because as a society we have agreed that common sense dictates while life may not be fair, any type of personal gain at the deliberate expense of another is wrong and should not be tolerated.

Lets not confuse ingenuity with under-handedness either. If it was simply a matter of pure ingenuity, it would have been Microsoft that was the first to develop and actively market a web browser, not Netscape. Microsoft would be the first company to create wonderful new applications and utilities, not other companies, who MS then "borrows" ideas from to incorporate into its own system.

Survival of the fittest is a wonderful concept if you subscribe to the theory of natural selection. And in fact it works in practice for business as well, as long as the rules for fair-play are observed. Obviously the findings of fact by the courts have concluded that these rules of fair-play were not observed by MS when dealing with competitive threats by other companies. Microsoft has proven nothing, except that they are willing to revert to whatever tactics it takes to maintain their market share.

Let us not confuse the concept of a monopoly and form our opinions about whether it is, or is not one, based on the price that is charged. After all, what better way to disguise your motives and methods of attempting to dominate a product or market, than by making it available at a price which fosters indifference among a majority of its consumers. I have no idea what it costs MS per unit to produce its products, so speculation on the fairness of its price in relation to its competitors is in a way irrelevant to this arguement. I would bet though that if a new and completely comparable OS were available tomorrow from another company, at half the cost of Windows98, MS would immediately lower the price of its product to meet or beat the competitors price and maintain its market share. That said, price is not always a good indicator of whether a monopoly exists or not.

There are plenty of people who care that MS integrated its web browser into the operating system. I for one would have appreciated the option to install it or not, in the same fashion that I get to decide about other components provided by MS. The key here was not so much that they did it, but the intent that MS had for doing so........that intent was to leverage its already popular OS and existing customer base to squash rival browser makers, most notably Netscape.

You are correct, most business do not make a practice of endorsing a competitors product. Good businesses with sound products instead tout the strengths of their own products in comparison to other offerings....but they do not take active steps to subvert other companies either. You are also correct that Windows is Microsoft's product and they should be able to do with it what they please....but again, this misses the point. I don't think as many people have issues with what MS decides to include in its OS, as much as they do with the intent which caused the decision to be made, and how those decisions were implemented.

Should we now make AOL endorse the MSN because they too have had success and grown into a large organization???? Hell no! But if they (AOL) try to subvert, undermine, or otherwise damage the MSN with unfair or monopolistic trade practices (such as preventing their subscribers from accessing the MSN), then yes, they too should fall under the scrutiny of the governing body and face the consequences.

As I said earlier in this post, I too am a MS user and fan. And I concur with Nathan that we likely would not have been as competitive a nation in the international market place were it not for Microsoft and the products they provided. But I do not think that alone in any way should exempt them from liability for their actions.

I also agree with you, as most do, that it all comes down to competition......but that should be fair competiton. Part of the "Free" in American Free Enterpise stands for the ability to conduct your business FREE of interference from others.

Please try to look at this more objectively in the future. I think you will see that there are fewer people out there who are trying to destroy Microsoft, and more who are simply fighting for a fair chance to compete.

[This message has been edited by Target (edited 11-08-1999).]

[NerO]

Anyways, if Microsoft never existed there is a good chance that Sysopt wouldn't be here, where would we be?. No Message Board to reply to? They are not innovators, but if there was no Microsoft, we would be in an Apple World. And Steve Jobs would have the monopoly. I'm glad we're not. /forum/smile.gif I like Unfair, Dirty Tactics. Who said Life's fair? Any means necessary to be #1. The weak die, the strong survive.

[seti]

Ha, by any chance is your favorite book Lord of the Flies?? "you da men Jack!!" Ha, sorry, just kidding.

hmmm....Bill Gates = Jack Merridew???? haha, maybe. http://www.pernet.net/~chadly1/lord_of_the_flies/characters2.html


I'm 20. I started off with Dos and dosshell. then windows 3, 95 and now 98. I've never owned a car....but I bet I'll own more than one brand.

[This message has been edited by seti (edited 11-09-1999).]

[This message has been edited by seti (edited 11-09-1999).]

[Target]

Pretty interesting take you have there Nero.
You should hope for your own sake there is no such thing as karma............. <lol>

[Joel Kleppinger]

Target, in my opinion, that reply (the long one) is in the top 10 ever on this forum.

NerO - you're missing the point. The fact is that it is _proven_ that MS is cheating in the game of business (yes, it is a game).

According to your logic, the NFL doesn't need penalties or refs - anything should be allowed to go - cheap shots, fighting, etc. This correlates to the business world...the same principles apply. The challenge of any game is to attempt to win _within_ the rules, thereby proving you _really_ are the champion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm TOTALLY against government intervention if at all possible - I think the government has way too much say as it is. However, there are some cases that are just clear cut that something should be done.

My idea of politics, and for that matter - life, is simple: common sense. If we just use a bit of common sense, even denying our "intellectualism" and embracing simple truths, we'd do so much better in everything.

[This message has been edited by Joel Kleppinger (edited 11-09-1999).]

[nilknarf]

Joel, I couldn't agree more!
/forum/smile.gif

Microsoft's time is passed, they used to have a good product, much of their current SW sucks. They strongarm other developers and force them to comply to their standards just because they have the market share. If they really want to survive, MS is going to have to change the way they market and develop software.

BTW, if their was no MS, we would not be in an Apple world, and their would be forums like SysOpt. Let us not forget that MS is only around because they sold IBM on their product. Both Windows and Mac are a result of Xerox work, and the internet existed long before either one. People need to understand that we don't necessarily need MS, and if Bill Gates quit MS, the world would survive long enough to change over to other SW without making huge investments.

NerO, I have no problem with competition or companies trying to trying to get as much market share as possible. I do have a problem when those companies take advantage of consumers and competitors and violate legal, ethical, and moral rules to get there. In the end, such actions will destroy those companies. And before you say anything about nature, we have the intelligence and the conscience to make decisions that go against our natural instincts, that is our only power over nature and why our civilization even exists.
/forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif /forum/smile.gif

[Apostle 83]

I am young (under 20), but I believe that I can help out you old timers (over 20, lol).
Nothing is going to happen to Microsoft through government intervention! Why do I say this? I am not going to get into a lengthy post here, but anyone ever heard of IBM? (I feel dumb for asking, but the way you talk about Microsoft, you'd think you never have!) the feds launched a 13 year long anti trust suit against IBM which, although at many times looked like it would wipe the company, ended being dropped. Why? Well, the Reagan (GOD BLESS RONALD REAGAN) administration came in and dropped the suit. IBM was top dawg in EVERYTHING- typewriters, mainframes, you name it. THEY HAD A MONOPOLY THAT TOWERS OVER THE ONE MICROSOFT HAS NOW. Yet, are they top dawg anymore? No. They are an industry leader in new technology. They are known for their hard drives and components. They make computers for home consumers, but lines are dropping. THIS IS A FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM!!!!!! I hate Microsoft with al of my heart! But the governemetn is not the answer to our problems! If microsoft IS broken up ( a really, really big if) then consumers will again allow on eplatform to dominate the market... and where there is money, corruption abounds. Money could cause the designer of linux to 'redo' his liscence agreement for example.

My point is this: break up microsoft, and there will be few industry standards in regards to information compatability. New technologies will be sporadically embraced... Allow companies to gradually overtake the sleeping giant, and we will see fierce competition, price reductions, faster pacesd technology tinmelines.. heaven on earth!
Oh, by the way, check out my post http://www.sysopt.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/002285.html . I believe this proves i hate microsoft!

[nilknarf]

Well put Apostle83, but I'm 21 and I do know about IBM and the antitrust suit against them. After 13 years, it got dropped because everyone had forgotten what it was about and it had become a moot point by then.

I don't want to see MS break up. Remember AT&T, todays phone companies' customer service and telecom service just plain sucks. Sure there's great pricing happening, but the quality has disappeared. If MS were to break up, it isn't standards that I'll be worried about, it's the quality and intercompatibility of their product that would concern me. Right now, MS engineers talk freely to each other about the various projects they work on. If they broke up, who would go where and would they still communicate in order to maintain a "streamlined" product.

There are a lot of software developers out there, MS would have plenty of competition if those developers would force MS to change their policy of forcing everyone onto their standard.

Speaking of standards, what industry standards of information compatibilty are you refering to. With the exception (refering only to computers here) of a handful of Internet exchange protocols and languages, several of which were created for the U.S. Gov., there are no standards. I would have a much smaller job description if there were any real standards. Standards must be why most software can read and save data in dozens of different formats, right?!

I apologize if this is way off base, but I just feel so stongly about some of this stuff!
/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by nilknarf (edited 11-09-1999).]

[Roraycr]

Originally, this whole mess started because Netscape, who had a monopoly on browsers, complained because Microsoft infringed on their monopoly. Losers always cry, "Deal!".

[This message has been edited by Roraycr (edited 11-10-1999).]

[Target]

Apostle, you're funny..... (old timers - LMAO). We'll see how you feel about that when you are in your 30's.

To say that nothing is going to happen to Microsoft through gov't intervention because some years ago the gov't dropped its suit against IBM, is sort of like saying you think that the next football star who kills his wife is also going to get away with it because they acquitted OJ.......

Do you really think that we needed assistance in remembering who IBM is, and what they were? Hell brother, there are some people on this board that remember using punch cards for christ sake.

The fact that Ronald Reagan and the Republican party pressured the justice department into dropping its case against IBM certainly does not mean that in todays political climate, the same courtesy is going to be extended to Microsoft. Its a different era, with different leaders, and a more informed public. The face of corporate business has changed dramatically since then....Even though Microsoft has a ton of money and a large lobbying influence, they are in a different corner than IBM was when they fought their battles against the DOJ. I personally hope they do NOT break MS up, but we will have to wait and see what the courts decide. Certainly sanctions and ongoing monitoring of their activities are in order, and forcing them to make reparations to those companies they directly hurt would be fair.

The reasons that IBM fell from such a so-called lofty platform do indeed have a great deal to do with the Free Enterprise system. In the late 80's and early 90's, IBM made some colossal mistakes in their management and decision making which left the door wide open for other companies to take advantage of. Certainly we all remember micro-channel PC's don't we? I won't even go into OS/2........The point is (as just one example) while IBM pushed for micro-channel to be the standard, they didn't apparently try to snuff out their rivals who had developed alternatives, simply because they had the money and clout to do so. In a lot of ways, the micro-channel architecture was superior to what became the de-facto standard. The bottom line, (and you were correct) the market system worked it out for us. Consumer reaction, supply and demand, alternative manufacturers, all the things that allow a Free Enterprise system to work effectively did just that. But that is only because those factors were allowed to work, un-hindered by any large company using its extensive influence and financial resources to muck it up.

Again, this leads us back to the matter of intent, and whether or not a monopoly is harmful simply because it is one, or because of how it behaves. Certainly there are countless examples of monopolies that exist today, some to a greater degree than others. Some of them exist because of geographic locations, others because possible business rivals do not see a motive to compete (ie: it would not be profitable). Still others are allowed for a short time by gov't agencies because without a short-term monopoly to assist in recovering implementation costs (ie: infrastructure, construction, R&D, etc), no business would provide the product and services to the community. For example, doesn't South Dakota sort of have a monopoly over Mount Rushmore and the tourist dollars it creates? Its not like you can put it on a truck and take it for display somewhere else. Nor would other states find it cost efficient to create their own. Or how about the little town that has only one fast food restaurant? Don't they too have a monopoly of sorts? In the strictest sense, yes they do. They are the only one providing a fast food option to the citizens of the community. Should they be punished simply because that is the way it is? Again, the answer is no. Should they be punished if they try to prevent another fast-food chain from putting in a restaurant in the same community? Heck yeah! So how about those gov't allowed monopolies.....are they really necessary? The answer here again is yes, with regulation. If you don't think this is the case, look at the telecommunications industry. In its earliest years, virtually everyone had a phone company it seemed. And each strung their own cables from their CO to peoples homes. Each one running their own lines, with their own equipment. I wish you could see pictures of cities in the early 1900's, with thousands of cables suspended overhead. Was it competitive? Most likely! Was it ugly, a huge waste of resources, and more detrimental to the customer than a regulated monopoly? For sure! Granted, this gov't sponsored monopoly was allowed to go on far longer than it should have been, but I think you get my meaning.

Unlike yourself, I do not hate MS. In fact for the most part I like them and their products. Still, gov't is the only answer to this particular problem because no other entity.... private, public, or otherwise, is large enough to influence MS and the way they apparently conduct business as it relates to their competition. Indeed, if MS is broken up, consumers may again gravitate towards a single platform from a single provider...... but it will be because it outperforms, or is in some way better, than the other offerings at that time. As it is now, with one company dominating a market, and taking active steps to prevent others from bringing their alternatives to bear, that situation of free choice is severely limited. Keep in mind too that money and corruption are mutually exclusive, even though it sometimes appears that they are not.

Breaking up MS does not necessarily mean that there would be no standards either. There are a lot of other standards boards and committees that already exist today. In fact, what it would likely mean is that discussion for standards would be spread among some of the best thinkers in the industry, rather than being dictated to us by a large company that is trying to force their own agenda, for their own benefit. We may still end up with a MS standard under such an arrangement, but at least the world would have some measure of assurance that the best standard was chosen for the industry as a whole.

Allowing companies to gradually over-take the sleeping giant is exactly what this has been all about. All that is being asked is that the sleeping giant be prevented from squishing those that attempt to run by......


[This message has been edited by Target (edited 11-09-1999).]

[seti]

Ha, I think Target has earned "Memeber" status with just those two posts. /forum/smile.gif Amen brother.


Personally I'd like to see a universal programing standard. That way you could run the same app or game on all platforms. That way the OS market would try to earn your cash by really trying to offer the best product. Or the most features, or anything else they thought up to say there product is better. That way I wouldn't have to buy MS because...well because I have to.



[This message has been edited by seti (edited 11-09-1999).]

[bobcat]

NerO - I don't care that they are a Monopoly. I don't like the tactics of telling other companies that if you don't do what I want, I will no longer provide my OS to you. Thats too much power!!! It would be better if we had more choices. Maybe a new OS would come out of it, maybe it wouldn't. The fact is that as consumers we are getting killed $$$.

A perfect example...Intel & AMD. If AMD had not started putting pressure on Intel, do you honestly believe we would have such inexpensive CPU power for the $$$? NO!!! We would be dropping $500 or more for a CPU that could only do 300-500Mhz. There would be no low end computer market. Who benifited from this? We did /forum/smile.gif

As for no SysOpt...UNIX has existed way before MS came into existence.

[pickel]

I'm glad that Microsoft was not an Oil and Rubber Company in the Sixties. There's no telling how many more boys wouldn't have come back from Nam.

[cment]

Look at it this way. If IBM wouldn't have let companies clone their machines and Mac would have. Steve Jobes would be in court all the time. So I say quit the crying and let it go. The goverment just has to be in someones business all the time. I do believe probably most all of us,99.99999% have used a Bill product. Just think of it as a part of life. Sorta like milk. It seems to have the monopoly on cereal. /forum/smile.gif

[Livewire]

The primary reason, I am compelled to reply to this thread, is that in large majority we have overlooked one very essential point. We are the ones that have placed M$ in this position. The industries produce their products and we, as a market-driven society decide who will maintain a position of supremecy. If they have in fact broken standards that we view as important. Then DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS it is our choice as consumers who keeps the position of market leader. I for one don't trust the government to make that decision for me.

I would be pleased if the world were an idealogical place. This unfortunately, is not the case. Certainly, unethicial business practices are fundamentally wrong. If we are willing, to prosecute, those who do not see them as such. Then it follows, we should apply this standard to the community, at a global level. Aren't the operating systems equal : M$--crashes, and is easy to use Linux--stablity, user minimum required I.Q. >70. You actually must put forth an effort to understand and efficiently operate the latter. This I see a deciding factor. M$ has put a enormous amount of effort into this concept. So much that by doing so, they have eliminated me as a consumer of their products. The laws that are being used to prosecute M$ are archaic and were meant to address a similar but perhaps different situation. Standard Oil, was a huge beast that sucked the natural resources from our enviroment. However, how many here can say they would give up the societial advances that this event spawned. Has it just been overnight that the powers-that-be were enlightened to this fact. That our economy can produce such circumstances. Would you say that T.A.Edison was an underhanded or an innovative individual. A great majority of his patents were for devices which were only enhanced versions of their original. M$ has definitely reached the point where one could question it's continued efficiency. Are we in the same breath ready to relinquish our power and voice as if we cannot affect this issue, or have we already. The membership has grown to roughly 5K How many more have values consistant with those we share. Think about that over your next bowl of cereal and milk. ---Livewire---

[Target]

Cment....Indifference shouldn't be an option unless you are completely prepared to live with the outcome.

Livewire....I think you and I have a basic agreement on this issue, but I decided to respond anyway.

Indeed, consumers have helped to place MS in the position they hold as a market-share leader. And I think we all wish that a purely market-driven society alone would determine which business entity maintained a position of supremacy within a given industry.

However, the truth of the matter is, in this case that apparently was not allowed to happen. At the very least this form of natural selection, based on consumer supply and demand, was adversely influenced by the actions of MS.

I'm not a fan of big Gov't either. Yet, because of their enormous influence as a market-share leader and the resources they can bring to bear, if MS were left unchecked and allowed to continue with practices which intentionally undermined competition, there would be nothing to prevent them from eventually controlling the entire market.

In a way, it's already too late to simply not buy their products in an effort to send a message. The market has already been significantly influenced. Because of that, there aren't quite enough alternatives available today for the consuming public to choose from which meet their needs. In addition, MS has such a huge head start over some of its competitors, that without assurances and protection from the Gov't against MS interference, those firms cannot survive to bring their offerings before the public.

In some ways too, choosing not to buy MS products is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. For a great many users, MS products (Win9x, NT) are the ones that best suit their needs at this time. As much as I would like to see Linux succeed, it is not yet a mature enough product for most current MS users to consider as a serious alternative.

I agree that the laws being used to prosecute MS are somewhat archaic. Indeed amendments or changes to those laws will also have to be made so that the spirit of the law maintains its integrity with the times. However, it does not make them any less valid.

I also do not think anyone is discounting the advances in society that can be attributed to MS, nor would most want to give them up. But again, I can't imagine that to be a valid excuse for allowing a company to behave in a monopolistic fashion.

I have no idea if Thomas Edison ever behaved in an under-handed fashion, and certainly his inventions/innovations revolutionized our lives. But the granting of patents and copyright protection are two very different animals. The fact that the Gov't granted Edison a patent, in effect gave him a measure of exclusivity over his specific design for a limited time. But it certainly did not endorse, nor would it allow, monopolistic behavior……..maybe I misunderstood the meaning of your example.

I think we can all question the continued efficiency of MS, but any loss in efficiency appears to have been offset by power. That power being partnership agreements with other companies, financial resources that are staggering, and the ability to intimidate or directly influence others within the industry.

I don't think it is any longer a question of whether or not we want to relinquish our power as a consumer group to the Gov't to act on our behalf. Its rather that we have to because our influence alone will not be significant enough in the initial stages to effect change.


[This message has been edited by Target (edited 11-11-1999).]