Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:46:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2895 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In the meantime, where did you pick up Holden "Commie"? Did someone
> > from Australia actually say that or are you just expressing a political
> > preference for Fords? fut .fun
>
> I heard "commo" and "commie" a lot while I was there. Even the Holden guy at
> the torch relay ceremony Holden show tent (they had a special edition Golden
> Ute there on show, it was a beaut) in Parmatta called it that. I think it's
> a cute name,
and typically Strine too (eg brekkie=breakfast, kindie=kindergarten). I'd
never heard it before: as far as I knew "commo" and "commie" exclusively
referred to communist. Ross mentioned the Holden vs Ford clan rivalry --
maybe that satisfies Holden fans' need for ideological conflict.
> and as I said, apparently GMH is about the best division of GM
> extant since they seem to actually come up with neat stuff (cf. the Pontiac
> Aztec for an example of the screwed up thinking at GM NA). So no, it's not a
> Ford bias, per se.
I'm not a rev-head, and totally uninformed: does GM NA have anything like
the Holden Special Vehicles (HSV) division? I suspect HSV, the fuss about
supercars and Bathurst, the Aussie Holden cult in general and of course utes
make the biggest difference. Maybe the _lack_ of competition too -- AFAIK
Dodge, Chrysler etc haven't had much to do with Australia in the past twenty
years or so, and Euro/Japanese/Korean makes appeal to a different market.
> > > I'm not trying to be difficult here, per se. I just don't get most of the
> > > "obvious" arguments as being at all obvious, or even true, and I think a
> > > healthy dose of "why"-ing might actually work to bring you and others to
> > > wonder about it too. Besides, I'm entitled to a little "why"-ing don't you
> > > think? Goodness knows I got enough of it from others.
> > >
> > > So examine your premises. Why is dominance (without coercion) bad, per se?
> >
> > I suspect that has a lot to do with my perspective -- I tend to see coercion
> > as implicit in dominance, at least in practise.
>
> You're going to have to show that, I think. It's not at all obvious to me
> that a superior product that everyone wants is at all coercive.
I meant much more generally as a philosophical principle, though I suspect
you're conflating the superiority of MS product (non-coercive) with the
superiority of MS business tactics (coercive). More on this after I've done
some more reading.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Indeed. Need to dig into the "why" of that, because just about everything you've posted as a disadvantage I see as an advantage! (...) I heard "commo" and "commie" a lot while I was there. Even the Holden guy at the torch relay ceremony Holden (...) (25 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
