Was Microsoft Waiting For Such a Time As This?

There's a Santa Claus movie where an elf invents a machine that can make super-sophisticated toys at breakneck speed. This machine makes him better than Santa and almost puts him out of business, but it becomes apparent after time that great though the elf's machine looked and wonderful though it seemed, it couldn't handle the load of work which was demanded of the North Pole and it fell apart. Santa came back and fixed the whole Christmas market thing.

I wonder if this is what Microsoft has been counting on during Apple's 'I'm a PC and I'm a Mac' commercials for, since the beginning of those rather clever and funny ads by Apple, Microsoft has said nothing. Not a word. Not a reply. Nothing.

Microsoft has form when it comes to pretending that an opponent doesn't exist. Just look at Symbian and how Microsoft, for years, just couldn't say the S-Word (Symbian) and just pretended it wasn't there (and this is true to some extent). But is this what Microsoft has done with Apple, or were they just wise?

Symbian has only gone from strength to strength, but these last few months have been rather bruising for Apple. it started off with evidence of proof-of-concept viruses, moved on to the disaster that was MobileMe, then the iPhone 2.0 firmware stank like a decaying badger with a good release only coming out this weekend just gone. Now, we hear of Apple blocking applications from the iPhone (a fart machine and a podcast player) because they serve no purpose and duplicate built in functionality, despite there being all manner of pointless joke apps which serve no real purpose and calculators which replace that which is already in there.

All in all, Apple has started to look like a company that's all talk and no trousers, plenty of style but not enough content. In fact, I fear that Apple is starting to look like that elf I mentioned at the top of the story.

So, what better time is there for Microsoft to start its new advertising campaign!? The commercials may not be particularly easy to decipher in regard to what they're actually saying (even the full length ones), but they are good and could well be saying "look, Apple has had a go and they can't handle working with the misters. Come back to old faithful."

Is this what's happening? I don't see any evidence that this is what's happening, yet, but I can see a situation where the tide of growth could be coming to a premature end for Apple as Microsoft comes in like the big brother who allowed his little brother a go at batting and shows him how to do it like a grown up.

It pains me to write all this because I'm what many might call an Apple Fanboy, but I have to call it as I see it here and while I believe that Microsoft has gotten off lightly for its lack of innovation (what they call innovation, I call shopping for others' ideas) and its criminal activity, it has shown that it can handle the traffic of a large customer base.

I think that Apple's opportunity to shine may be short and if it doesn't sort it out soon, it may have had its day as the premium technology provider.

Being Told What To Think

I know that there are many causes in this world which need to be fought for. The greatest cause for which any group can ever fight is that of equality. No matter what someone's position is on a matter, equality is essential to ensure all humans are given the respect they deserve by virtue of the the fact that they exist.

But just because a cause names equality as its essential motive, there is never an excuse to try and limit people's thought, to police their opinions or to fence in their facilities to express themselves. I don't care who you are, what you stand for or why you're fighting, the moment you start to tell me what words I can and can't use, on the grounds that you think they're bad words, you lose me.

Never, ever, ever try and remove words from my dictionary in an effort to limit my right to debate, question or challenge.

The page that wound me up like this was one that took me right back to the NewSpeak of 1984; Stonewall's Dictionary of Equality Language.

I want to look at some of their definitions and question the motives behind them;

Gay agenda: A homophobic term used to denigrate the LGB equality movement. It suggests a conspiracy to promote 'homosexuality' while threatening the 'norm' of heterosexual society.

Hang on a minute, how is it a bad thing to recognise that organisations like Stonewall have an agenda? Of course they do. Everybody has an agenda. Everybody has an objective. What, do the members of Stonewall just sit around and look into blank space, not saying anything just in case they find a direction?

Of course they have an agenda. At best, it's equality. At worst, who knows? But the fact is this, they have an agenda but we're not supposed to know it. That's why it's homophobic to say Gay Agenda.

Why wouldn't they want us to consider their agenda, their objectives, their goals?

Gay sex: A derogatory term used to define gay men by the sex they have, and ignores the emotional aspects of being gay. Often used in the media to imply a certain sleaziness to a story.

Nope, it's not to define the men, it's to describe the sexual act.

So far, we have a movement (Stonewall) where we're not allowed to consider its agenda and we're not allowed to talk about what people in the community do because they don't like the words.

Homosexual: Considered by some in the LGB community to be a derogatory and offensive term. It was used when same-sex attraction/relationships were construed as a mental illness. Use gay, lesbian, gay man/woman, bisexual, bisexual man/woman or the acronym LGB (lesbian, gay and bisexual).

How can I keep up with what I can and can't say? I was always taught that using the term Homosexual was a respectful term. Never, in school or outside, was the term homosexual considered negative or derogatory. In fact, the term gay was considered to be as rude and disrespectful as poofter.

Now I'm told it's an insult despite the fact that someone who is homosexual is actually homo-sexual. How long before the word gay is considered denigrating because youngsters have started to use it to mean bad, boring, pathetic and horrible?

Well, at least I have the web page to tell me what words I should use.

Homophobia: literally defined as fear of 'the other'. The beliefs and actions of people who hold these views and act upon them are based around a hatred of, or intolerance for, and/or a refusal to accept or acknowledge the equal rights of any lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Now we're cooking! This one word covers the entire spectrum, from refusal to accept right through to hatred. That's one helluva sweeping statement and talk about clipping the intellectual wings of someone who wants to think and understand!

But consider this loaded text; refusal to accept or acknowledge the equal rights of any lesbian, gay and bisexual people. I know people who believe that there is a moral issue in gay-ness (I'm not allowed to say homosexuality, remember?) but who also openly believe in equality for all people. Are people like this, homophobic? Experience tells me that if you disagree with any issue raised by the gay community (remember, there's no agenda so it's probably something that someone said when they forgot they weren'a allowed to say it), no matter how small, you're homophobic.

Prejudice: many people have prejudices or a faint dislike of people or groups. However, being prejudiced against a person or persons becomes very serious if that prejudice has an effect on the way that person is treated. Once a prejudicial thought is translated into a deed it becomes an act of discrimination.

So don't have the thought. Get it? Don't even think it.

Think about this for a minute, you've just been told that the word 'homosexual' is insulting, that there's no such thing as the 'gay agenda' and if you think there is, you're homophobic. Now, with this latest one, if you're in any doubt as to whether you wanting to ask a question could be an act of prejudice, you're probably better off not asking the question. it could turn into an act of prejudice so hey, let's not think about it - just in case.

Stereotyping: Stereotyping occurs when a person or organisation has pre-conceived ideas and notions about an individual or a group of people. For example, 'All gay men are camp' or 'All lesbians wear DM's and shave their heads.'

Maybe they could add to that 'everyone who uses the term 'homosexual' is a homophobe'?

---

As I said at the top, equality is a must for everyone. Nobody should be the underdog who suffers at the selfish greed or insecurity of another. Nobody. No exceptions.

That essential need for equality does not justify the removal of the the tools of thought; words. For, by removing words from the vocabulary of the people, those doing the removing are exalting themselves above everyone else and, guess what? There's no equality.

No doubt, this blog post is going to be considered by some as proof of an anti-gay agenda or some kind of homophobic scheme. Sadly, the stupid people who will conclude that I hate gays based on this blog post will not be driven by evil motives but actually, by good and well-meaning motives. I say 'sadly' because as well-meaning as many of these people may be who hate what they think I've written, they'll be too stupid to see beyond their blinkered NewSpeak noses to understand what I'm saying.