OSNews

Wow, you all are so biased.

Don't you just hate it when everyone else is out of step with you?

Perhaps you could point "us all" to some source of information that is not biased. Remember though, indeterminate does not equal unbiased. It only means equivocal.

Until there is actual proof one way or another, you simply can NOT say one way or the other.

Sworn testimony by the man who financed the SCO PIPE deal may not qualify as "actual" proof to you. However a judge's decision can be, and often is, based on how believable one or more witnesses are. And a legal decision can be based on that. If MS had never lied about any of its business dealings then you might have a point (that you could then express clearly instead of in vague abstractions which seem inapplicable/miscontrued to me).

Perhaps if you define what actual proof consists of [in your opinion] then I could say what I see to be the case within that framework. You might then disagree if you wish but your ability to see or decide on what I can say lies within you. It is not imposed on me from the outside except to the degree that I work within the confines of your definition.

The US is based on innocent until proven guilty, and yet here we have several people acting like mindless drones.

[Ronald_Reagan_voice]
There you go again claiming the whole world exists inside your grain of sand Mr. Guy!
[/Ronald_Reagan_voice]

The "US" is based on a number of things but innocent until proven guilty isn't the only one. So, your assertion fails by being insufficiently supported by your stated premise.

Remember the Puritans? When they were banished to North America were they innocent or guilty? Of what and where? How about destroying the aboriginal culture? Was that an innocent act or a guilty one? The indentured servitude that allowed a viable economy to develop here. Some of those servants were declared guilty prior to being shipped over here, some simply took on the contract in order to have a chance at something they saw as unavailable in England. How about slaves? Innocent or guilty? Those are just a couple of randomly selected things (based on my biases) that the US sprang from and wouldn't exist in its current form without.

Of course, US legal decisions are based on the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Might the innocent still arrested, jailed and subjected to other restrictions until the jury decides (and the judge in the case rules) that they should be released? Am I allowed to have and express an opinion on that either?

One other principle that the US has adopted in its founding documents is that, within certain limits, I actually can say what I think to be the case. You are also allowed to say, for instance, that you can't decide what the actual situation may be. But that doesn't constitute proof of innocence either, although it would appear that you wish us to accept it as such.

On the other hand I perceive that making declarations based on lack of understanding of the principles "actually" involved and claiming that anyone who disagrees must be wrong is more of a mindless drone activity. However, your existence as a hymenopteral consort may vary. (o;

Truely [sic] sickening.

I agree with that notion from the opposite viewpoint. i.e. Will MS be allowed to get away with even more stuff like this given their history of legal going against them and their woeful lack of compliancw with the legal remedies so far? You can say, or just imply, that people expressing their opinions is un-American. But don't expect everyone to just fold and say "Oh yeah, sorry."