Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:kg3q95-psg.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:1713876.KhxXeN0Nff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Saturday 01 March 2008 15:33 : \____
>>
>>>> So could you please explain to me the correlation between the
>>>> Indian vote yesterday and Microsoft bribing them? According to a
>>>> comment on Brian Jones' blog [0] India disapproved 97.86% of the
>>>> responses from ECMA.
>>>
>>> An unsuccessful case of misconduct does not make it any less of a
>>> misconduct.
>>
>> Good one, Roy.
>>
>> A: Why are you whistling?
>> B: So scare off the tigers
>> A: But there are no tigers in Copenhagen
>> B: Well, there you go!
>
> Attempted bribery is a crime, just as actual bribery is. You seem to
> be rather confused on this point.
No - but when I asked Roy for clarification I hadn't seen his post about
the offer from Microsoft to India at the end of August 2007.
I think most people can't help to think "I wonder if the timing of the
offer was a coincidence".
:o)
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
