From what I can tell, it would have to be quite the legal coup for MS to win this one.
Can you imagine the repercussions if they were to win this? It would basically destroy all form of employee rights and give companies full power over any employees future work prospects.
Oops, my bad. OK, so there are actually 3 lawsuits, and one is indeed filed by MS against Google. However, this one is quite obviously frivolous to the extreme and will almost certainly be thrown out.
It'd be a real _real_ long stretch to be able to prove that Google is in any way even remotely bound to the clauses in this individual's contract with MS.
It appears actually that this particular suit gives Google the firepower required for their lawsuit agains MS. And given the facts, I'd have to say that they have a reasonable case agains MS here.
The lawsuit MS has levied agains Google is frivolous at best. Google never signed anything with MS. Assuming we can even agree that Non-Compete clauses are legal (obviously highly contested here), there is absolutely NO legal means to hold Google accountable for this. It is not illegal to hire people. It is not illegal to hire people from competitors. It is also not illegal to hire people that have contracts with competitors.
There is absolutely NO legal means for Google to be held accountable for someone elses contractual obligations.
This particular case will be thrown right out the window.
They are just that, offers. Offers are always open to negotiation. Don't bitch about what you signed, especially if you didn't even bother to negotiate.
Look up the definition of the word offer. Once you understand it you may begin to see that you can counter-offer and almost always get a better contract.
Or don't. But it is up to YOU to make that decision and live with it. No company can ever force you to work for them, nor can they force you to work under a contract you don't agree with, unless of course you choose to do nothing about that. And then of course you've made your bed so at that point you might as well sleep in it rather than bitch about it.
The lawsuit is NOT MS vs Google, where the heck did you get that idea?
Google did NOT sign this guys contract on behalf of him with MS when he was hired by MS.
Google is NOT involved at all in that dispute.
Google has brought about another legal action against MS in an attempt to protect their new found asset, but this has absolutely NO bearing on the issue of the original contract.
Employers almost always have the upper hand in the negotiations. Government's job is to decide what is allowable and what is not.
You need to have a higher opinion of your self worth if you believe this. (Unless you're only capable of working at 7-11, then you'd best take what you are offered)
The employer almost NEVER has the upper hand, though they usually present themselves differently. You have to give them that power, and why would you? If a company wants _you_ for a job, then _you_ have the upper hand. Don't like what's on the table? Discuss changes. Changes are refused? Take the competitions offer.
Companies only exist because of their employees. Good employees are the only reason any successful company exists. As such, don't sell your self short.
Like it or not, Google is not an angel but a corporation like any other.
That statement has absolutely no relevance here. It is not Google's responsibility to live up to an employees previous contractual obligations. Google's relative goodness vs evilness does not come into play. The only reason Google is involved at all is they are trying to protect their new found asset.
The contract dispute however is solely between MS and the employee in question.
Again, as yuo chose to ignore, I agree with the limits of this galaxy design, but see benefit in the actual spiral-chart that was designed in the 50's.
They are NOT the same.
The chart from the 50's quite obviously conveys a large amount of information, whereas this galaxy one does not as many people have mentioned.
As such, would you kindly re-think your argument after reviewing the 50's chart? I believe it conveys all of the information found in the current periodic table, plus some, as well as providing it in an intuitive way that I believe makes more sense.
Chill dude. I didn't call you names or anything, or condemn how you work. I merely offered up a suggestion for an alternative.
Considering we obviously work in similar fields (that much I most certainly can determine from your post as you stated enough about yourself to allow that determination), and I have worked using numerous different monitor/desktop/vwm combinations over the years and have settled on something that is the most productive for me. As such, it just might be worth trying for someone else doing a similar job...or not.
I'm forcing nothing on you, I'm merely offering up information. Take it or leave it.
I will say this though: I have a co-worker that works like you do. (At least as far as you describe) They are also very vocal about their work environment. They insist on having 4 monitors to use for similar reasons to you.
Biggest dog-fucker we've ever had. Management always thinks they're doing great things though because there's always so much to look at on all of those monitors, so they _must_ be productive right?
And working with them over their shoulder (review, helping out, whatever...) it becomes painfully obvious that this is not the right solution for the type of work. Takes them forever to focus on the first thing they are looking for, then to drag something across 4 monitors...blah blah whatever. It's just very painful to watch.
I have in the past tried 4 and 3 monitor configurations. 3, for me anyways, almost works but is still overly distracting in certain situations. Sometimes I'd like it, most of the time I wouldn't really use it. 4 though I found to be utterly useless.
Again, personal experience and preference.
Really glad it works for you though.
(Also, please tone down the hypocrisy if you wouldn't mind. You got pissed at my post for assuming too much about how you work, and then proceed to condemn how I work. How odd.)
But in the case of an employment contract, when you leave, that contract is over.
Like I said, in Ontario this is not true. This clause is indeed legal and enforceable.
Not all places have the same laws. Not all laws are right or logical.
Doesn't change the fact that they are laws.
Next time I would suggest wording such information differently as it obviously is relevant to the law in a particular place. Contradicting me doesn't make sense as we are both correct.
I really only like the alternative to the artificial layout of the current periodic table. I actually like the older spiral layout from the 50's that this newer galaxy one was inspired by much better. It appears to retain the information available in current tables, while presenting it in a more logical way, and giving a better representation of the relationships between elements to boot.
Something about the existing table has always struck me as artificial and non obvious.
Maybe I should clarify, my focus is not on the 'galaxy' presentation of the image. Actually, I much prefer the chart from the 50's that inspired this piece of 'art'.
I really don't like the periodic table as it is. It isn't logical. To learn it, you must memorize it. That doesn't make much sense as there is a very logical progression to the elements.
The spiral chart from the 50's seems to actually make sense to me. This newer one is obviously over simplified, but for an introductory tool to learning the elements it certainly isn't any worse than the periodic table.
Yes, because it would be absolutely impossible to add that information to each element with the chart in this format wouldn't it.
That was jus a wee bit too pedantic and elitist for my tastes thanks. Besides, who's at your door demanding you turn over all of your existing periodic tables?
I totally fail to see where reality backs up your statements.
I always thought of the (current) periodic table to be a non-obvious hack at organizing this information. Sure, it's logical in a sort of kinda sorta way. I believe we become comfortable with it because it is what we are taught, but I do not see how the current design conveys the benefits you suggest it does.
Please expand on your 3 points because they really don't make sense to me.
How is the existing periodic table not a gross oversimplification if this new one is?
As far as I can tell, the new one(s) are entirely complete and accurate. Moreso, they actually are organized in a way that can be extended. The existing periodic table is only complete because of the footnotes, extensions and other non-obvious changes required to stuff all of that extra didn't-know-it-existed-at-the-time information into it.
The new one isn't only pretty, it's totally logical in an absolutely obvious way.
Maybe you have to _not_ be a scientist to see it, I don't know.
As the GP stated, this clause does not block one from getting a job doing what they do. It stops them from DIRECTLY COMPETING for a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.
This makes sense and is deffinately fair in certain cases.
It does NOT, and no court would uphold it if it tried to, limit a programmer from getting a job programming for a period of time. It _could_ limit someone who worked on a very specific thing from competing directly for a limited amount of time.
These clauses are used and enforced more often in sales of businesses than in general employment contracts.
Keep this in mind, you will NEVER see this clause in a contract for a sales clerk or any sort of service job. These are only used when one is privy to proprietary information that could allow an employee to either start up their own directly competing business, or to take that information to a competitor.
I don't know about the precedence in WA or other states, but in Ontario this is limited to a very narrow view of an industry. You cannot limit a programmer from taking another programming job. You can limit a programmer specializing in search algorithms from taking another job specializing in search algorithms.
The point being there absolutely MUST be direct competition involved for a non-compete clause to be binding in any way. Because of this, these clauses are always open for interpretation on a case by case basis in the courts. (For a former employer to win on that clause, they will have to prove that you did indeed take a directly competing job.)
I've never heard of a non-compete clause up here that was longer than a year, though I am unsure whether that is a legal limit or not.
These tend to show up as well, and more often, in sales contracts. IE: Selling company A to company B, company B will insist that owner-of-A doesn't start up another competing business within a year of sale.
Case example: A family friend was an owner of Upper Canada Breweries for a long time. They sold out to Sleeman Breweries about 5 years ago or so. A one year no-compete clause was attached to the sale, meaning none of the owners could start up another brewery for at least a year. Thinking about it, this actually makes quite a bit of sense. Anyways, just after a year had passed by, he started up SteamWhistle Breweries in Toronto. Now a very successful brewery. (Very good beer too no less, pretty cool location for the brewery as well. Take a tour sometime if you get a chance! It's located in the historic train roundhouse near the base of the CN tower.)
I highly recommend a vwm. At least try it before moving to 4 monitors. I've always found more than 2 to get in the way and be very distracting. With a vwm I can organize desktops for various tasks. (communication, coding, research, graphics, db etc)
The best I've found for my own use happens to be within litestep, so maybe _slightly_ more complicated than just installing CoolDesk vwm or one of the other stand alond vwm's. (CoolDesk works quite well as well, just not as many features)
It's not a big deal though...I don't run a full blown litestep as shell anymore, not required. I just run litestep on top of explorer, with only 2 modules: lsxcommand and ckvwm. Works beautifully, first thing I install on any new machine I'm using. Really don't know what I'd do without it.
I strongly suspect that you are abusing the ability to add monitors just for the sake of having many monitors. It really doesn't sound like you require that kind of immediate access to all of those apps at the exact same time. You really do not need enough screen real estate to have an individual space for every single window you use.
(Now, there are certain applications or jobs that benefit, or even require having that much _information_ available at a glance. This is really what more than 2 monitors are useful for)
What you need, I believe, is a virtual desktop manager.
I run 2 1280x1024 monitors with 5 virtual desktops across both.
I typically have 30 or so windows open.
Each virtual desktop is organized around a particular task. My first being general communications, ie email, browsers, im etc.
My second being my dev environ. Third being graphics. etc etc...
Sure, I _could_ run 6 monitors, but it certainly wouldn't make me any more productive. Contrary, it would make me very unproductive because I would be distracted when trying to do one particular task to see all this other unrelated stuff going on all the time.
VWM's are the cats meow. It's a real shame that they aren't more mainstream and used by more people. They've been relegated to 'power-user-only' status for whatever reason, even though there are many vwm's out there with totally intuitive and brutally simple interfaces.
Now for a brief MS rant. I think this is at least partly MS's fault. They've only attempted providing this functionality once, in the 2000 power tools add on, extended to XP as well.
It's the WORST vwm I could ever conceive, let alone ever actually used. It's so incredibly pathetic and wrong that I am absolutely convinced that they did it on purpose to scare users away from even thinking about using such a tool.
Thankfully, there are many _many_ very good alternatives out there!
And yes, I run windows, but I know my history. Supreme kudos to XWindows. Creamed my pants first time I saw that feature!
There is one major show-stopper problem though: maximized windows.
This window folding will never work well because of that one simple little oversight. And I can't see any way of dealing with maximized windows using the same easy gestures.
Yes, but again, lets not take one tiny piece of the argument out of proportion. This isn't a 1:1 causation thing.
A) Pop vs OJ: One actually has some nutritional value, while the other doesn't. Both have lots of calories. (Fresh squeeze OJ still has less sugar than your average pop, but whatever)
B) Moderation moderation moderation.
The problem where it is abused the worst is when the choice is between 6 cans of pop a day, OR 1 glass of OJ, 1 glass of milk and 4 glasses of water.
I know way too many people in the former category.
I also know not one single person that drinks any kind of juice on the scale that the pop drinkers do.
So while all of you are correct that OJ has lots of sugar, even when compared to pop, please PLEASE note that that is not the point.
Did I ever suggest drinking _any_ kind of juice in large quantities?
You've just suggested taking supplements with pop intake, as well as drinking pop with artificial sweeteners.
All I suggested was not drinking crap, and drinking better things _in moderation_.
All of this is a sad attempt at trying to paint pop in a better light. What is the point? Why would you do that? Pop is crap, period. Argue that if you like, but _please_ quit insinuating that pop is not crap by comparing it to other things in less than equal comparisons.
Now, if you would like to offer up an argument countering the statement that pop is crap, I'd love to hear it. Best of luck in that;)
Slashdot Mirror
From what I can tell, it would have to be quite the legal coup for MS to win this one.
Can you imagine the repercussions if they were to win this? It would basically destroy all form of employee rights and give companies full power over any employees future work prospects.
Oops, my bad. OK, so there are actually 3 lawsuits, and one is indeed filed by MS against Google. However, this one is quite obviously frivolous to the extreme and will almost certainly be thrown out.
It'd be a real _real_ long stretch to be able to prove that Google is in any way even remotely bound to the clauses in this individual's contract with MS.
It appears actually that this particular suit gives Google the firepower required for their lawsuit agains MS. And given the facts, I'd have to say that they have a reasonable case agains MS here.
Yes, that is the second lawsuit that Google has brought agains MS.
The problem is all of the discussions that are ignoring the differences between the two.
How anyone has come up with the idea that MS is suing Google is way beyond me. That is pure fiction.
I stand corrected, but with caveats.
The lawsuit MS has levied agains Google is frivolous at best. Google never signed anything with MS. Assuming we can even agree that Non-Compete clauses are legal (obviously highly contested here), there is absolutely NO legal means to hold Google accountable for this. It is not illegal to hire people. It is not illegal to hire people from competitors. It is also not illegal to hire people that have contracts with competitors.
There is absolutely NO legal means for Google to be held accountable for someone elses contractual obligations.
This particular case will be thrown right out the window.
You missed the point.
They are just that, offers. Offers are always open to negotiation. Don't bitch about what you signed, especially if you didn't even bother to negotiate.
Look up the definition of the word offer. Once you understand it you may begin to see that you can counter-offer and almost always get a better contract.
Or don't. But it is up to YOU to make that decision and live with it. No company can ever force you to work for them, nor can they force you to work under a contract you don't agree with, unless of course you choose to do nothing about that. And then of course you've made your bed so at that point you might as well sleep in it rather than bitch about it.
Just because they have a vested interest in the outcome does NOT mean that they are all of a sudden bound by their employees previous contract.
Just because they are fighting on his behalf does NOT mean MS has any legal stance against Google.
Google is simply an advocate for this employee. Don't read more in to that than is really there.
The lawsuit is NOT MS vs Google, where the heck did you get that idea?
Google did NOT sign this guys contract on behalf of him with MS when he was hired by MS.
Google is NOT involved at all in that dispute.
Google has brought about another legal action against MS in an attempt to protect their new found asset, but this has absolutely NO bearing on the issue of the original contract.
Your statement is grossly misleading.
You need to have a higher opinion of your self worth if you believe this. (Unless you're only capable of working at 7-11, then you'd best take what you are offered)
The employer almost NEVER has the upper hand, though they usually present themselves differently. You have to give them that power, and why would you? If a company wants _you_ for a job, then _you_ have the upper hand. Don't like what's on the table? Discuss changes. Changes are refused? Take the competitions offer.
Companies only exist because of their employees. Good employees are the only reason any successful company exists. As such, don't sell your self short.
That statement has absolutely no relevance here. It is not Google's responsibility to live up to an employees previous contractual obligations. Google's relative goodness vs evilness does not come into play. The only reason Google is involved at all is they are trying to protect their new found asset.
The contract dispute however is solely between MS and the employee in question.
I'm sorry, but if you got pulled over 57 times in 5 years, you're doing something wrong. Who is letting you keep your license?
Fifty Seven Times.
Holy shit dude.
Seriously, and you speak up about this like you've been wronged?
Either you're full of shit or you are actually the luckiest son of a bitch alive. 57 times and you apparently still have a license and aren't in jail.
If I were you, I'd be keeping my head down and my mouth shut whenever the conversation turns to anything relating to cars, licenses, cops or courts.
Again, as yuo chose to ignore, I agree with the limits of this galaxy design, but see benefit in the actual spiral-chart that was designed in the 50's.
They are NOT the same.
The chart from the 50's quite obviously conveys a large amount of information, whereas this galaxy one does not as many people have mentioned.
As such, would you kindly re-think your argument after reviewing the 50's chart? I believe it conveys all of the information found in the current periodic table, plus some, as well as providing it in an intuitive way that I believe makes more sense.
Chill dude. I didn't call you names or anything, or condemn how you work. I merely offered up a suggestion for an alternative.
Considering we obviously work in similar fields (that much I most certainly can determine from your post as you stated enough about yourself to allow that determination), and I have worked using numerous different monitor/desktop/vwm combinations over the years and have settled on something that is the most productive for me. As such, it just might be worth trying for someone else doing a similar job...or not.
I'm forcing nothing on you, I'm merely offering up information. Take it or leave it.
I will say this though: I have a co-worker that works like you do. (At least as far as you describe) They are also very vocal about their work environment. They insist on having 4 monitors to use for similar reasons to you.
Biggest dog-fucker we've ever had.
Management always thinks they're doing great things though because there's always so much to look at on all of those monitors, so they _must_ be productive right?
And working with them over their shoulder (review, helping out, whatever...) it becomes painfully obvious that this is not the right solution for the type of work. Takes them forever to focus on the first thing they are looking for, then to drag something across 4 monitors...blah blah whatever. It's just very painful to watch.
I have in the past tried 4 and 3 monitor configurations. 3, for me anyways, almost works but is still overly distracting in certain situations. Sometimes I'd like it, most of the time I wouldn't really use it. 4 though I found to be utterly useless.
Again, personal experience and preference.
Really glad it works for you though.
(Also, please tone down the hypocrisy if you wouldn't mind. You got pissed at my post for assuming too much about how you work, and then proceed to condemn how I work. How odd.)
Like I said, in Ontario this is not true. This clause is indeed legal and enforceable.
Not all places have the same laws.
Not all laws are right or logical.
Doesn't change the fact that they are laws.
Next time I would suggest wording such information differently as it obviously is relevant to the law in a particular place. Contradicting me doesn't make sense as we are both correct.
Fair enough.
I really only like the alternative to the artificial layout of the current periodic table. I actually like the older spiral layout from the 50's that this newer galaxy one was inspired by much better. It appears to retain the information available in current tables, while presenting it in a more logical way, and giving a better representation of the relationships between elements to boot.
Something about the existing table has always struck me as artificial and non obvious.
Maybe I should clarify, my focus is not on the 'galaxy' presentation of the image. Actually, I much prefer the chart from the 50's that inspired this piece of 'art'.
I really don't like the periodic table as it is. It isn't logical. To learn it, you must memorize it. That doesn't make much sense as there is a very logical progression to the elements.
The spiral chart from the 50's seems to actually make sense to me. This newer one is obviously over simplified, but for an introductory tool to learning the elements it certainly isn't any worse than the periodic table.
Yes, because it would be absolutely impossible to add that information to each element with the chart in this format wouldn't it.
That was jus a wee bit too pedantic and elitist for my tastes thanks. Besides, who's at your door demanding you turn over all of your existing periodic tables?
I totally fail to see where reality backs up your statements.
I always thought of the (current) periodic table to be a non-obvious hack at organizing this information. Sure, it's logical in a sort of kinda sorta way. I believe we become comfortable with it because it is what we are taught, but I do not see how the current design conveys the benefits you suggest it does.
Please expand on your 3 points because they really don't make sense to me.
How is the existing periodic table not a gross oversimplification if this new one is?
As far as I can tell, the new one(s) are entirely complete and accurate. Moreso, they actually are organized in a way that can be extended. The existing periodic table is only complete because of the footnotes, extensions and other non-obvious changes required to stuff all of that extra didn't-know-it-existed-at-the-time information into it.
The new one isn't only pretty, it's totally logical in an absolutely obvious way.
Maybe you have to _not_ be a scientist to see it, I don't know.
As the GP stated, this clause does not block one from getting a job doing what they do. It stops them from DIRECTLY COMPETING for a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.
This makes sense and is deffinately fair in certain cases.
It does NOT, and no court would uphold it if it tried to, limit a programmer from getting a job programming for a period of time. It _could_ limit someone who worked on a very specific thing from competing directly for a limited amount of time.
These clauses are used and enforced more often in sales of businesses than in general employment contracts.
Keep this in mind, you will NEVER see this clause in a contract for a sales clerk or any sort of service job. These are only used when one is privy to proprietary information that could allow an employee to either start up their own directly competing business, or to take that information to a competitor.
I don't know about the precedence in WA or other states, but in Ontario this is limited to a very narrow view of an industry. You cannot limit a programmer from taking another programming job. You can limit a programmer specializing in search algorithms from taking another job specializing in search algorithms.
The point being there absolutely MUST be direct competition involved for a non-compete clause to be binding in any way. Because of this, these clauses are always open for interpretation on a case by case basis in the courts. (For a former employer to win on that clause, they will have to prove that you did indeed take a directly competing job.)
I've never heard of a non-compete clause up here that was longer than a year, though I am unsure whether that is a legal limit or not.
These tend to show up as well, and more often, in sales contracts. IE: Selling company A to company B, company B will insist that owner-of-A doesn't start up another competing business within a year of sale.
Case example: A family friend was an owner of Upper Canada Breweries for a long time. They sold out to Sleeman Breweries about 5 years ago or so. A one year no-compete clause was attached to the sale, meaning none of the owners could start up another brewery for at least a year. Thinking about it, this actually makes quite a bit of sense. Anyways, just after a year had passed by, he started up SteamWhistle Breweries in Toronto. Now a very successful brewery. (Very good beer too no less, pretty cool location for the brewery as well. Take a tour sometime if you get a chance! It's located in the historic train roundhouse near the base of the CN tower.)
Right there with you man.
I highly recommend a vwm. At least try it before moving to 4 monitors. I've always found more than 2 to get in the way and be very distracting. With a vwm I can organize desktops for various tasks. (communication, coding, research, graphics, db etc)
The best I've found for my own use happens to be within litestep, so maybe _slightly_ more complicated than just installing CoolDesk vwm or one of the other stand alond vwm's. (CoolDesk works quite well as well, just not as many features)
It's not a big deal though...I don't run a full blown litestep as shell anymore, not required. I just run litestep on top of explorer, with only 2 modules: lsxcommand and ckvwm. Works beautifully, first thing I install on any new machine I'm using. Really don't know what I'd do without it.
I strongly suspect that you are abusing the ability to add monitors just for the sake of having many monitors. It really doesn't sound like you require that kind of immediate access to all of those apps at the exact same time. You really do not need enough screen real estate to have an individual space for every single window you use.
(Now, there are certain applications or jobs that benefit, or even require having that much _information_ available at a glance. This is really what more than 2 monitors are useful for)
What you need, I believe, is a virtual desktop manager.
I run 2 1280x1024 monitors with 5 virtual desktops across both.
I typically have 30 or so windows open.
Each virtual desktop is organized around a particular task. My first being general communications, ie email, browsers, im etc.
My second being my dev environ.
Third being graphics.
etc etc...
Sure, I _could_ run 6 monitors, but it certainly wouldn't make me any more productive. Contrary, it would make me very unproductive because I would be distracted when trying to do one particular task to see all this other unrelated stuff going on all the time.
VWM's are the cats meow. It's a real shame that they aren't more mainstream and used by more people. They've been relegated to 'power-user-only' status for whatever reason, even though there are many vwm's out there with totally intuitive and brutally simple interfaces.
Now for a brief MS rant. I think this is at least partly MS's fault. They've only attempted providing this functionality once, in the 2000 power tools add on, extended to XP as well.
It's the WORST vwm I could ever conceive, let alone ever actually used. It's so incredibly pathetic and wrong that I am absolutely convinced that they did it on purpose to scare users away from even thinking about using such a tool.
Thankfully, there are many _many_ very good alternatives out there!
And yes, I run windows, but I know my history. Supreme kudos to XWindows. Creamed my pants first time I saw that feature!
There is one major show-stopper problem though: maximized windows.
This window folding will never work well because of that one simple little oversight. And I can't see any way of dealing with maximized windows using the same easy gestures.
What is it with the average slashdotters black/white views on _everything_.
This is all about moderation. Nobody suggested kids should drink 4 litres of apple juice a day or anything like that.
What was stated is that drinking pop almost exclusively is a 'bad thing'.
(I feel like I'm beating my head against the wall now)
Yes, but again, lets not take one tiny piece of the argument out of proportion. This isn't a 1:1 causation thing.
A) Pop vs OJ: One actually has some nutritional value, while the other doesn't. Both have lots of calories. (Fresh squeeze OJ still has less sugar than your average pop, but whatever)
B) Moderation moderation moderation.
The problem where it is abused the worst is when the choice is between 6 cans of pop a day, OR 1 glass of OJ, 1 glass of milk and 4 glasses of water.
I know way too many people in the former category.
I also know not one single person that drinks any kind of juice on the scale that the pop drinkers do.
So while all of you are correct that OJ has lots of sugar, even when compared to pop, please PLEASE note that that is not the point.
'Drinking a shiteload of pop = bad' is the point.
Did I ever suggest drinking _any_ kind of juice in large quantities?
;)
You've just suggested taking supplements with pop intake, as well as drinking pop with artificial sweeteners.
All I suggested was not drinking crap, and drinking better things _in moderation_.
All of this is a sad attempt at trying to paint pop in a better light. What is the point? Why would you do that? Pop is crap, period. Argue that if you like, but _please_ quit insinuating that pop is not crap by comparing it to other things in less than equal comparisons.
Now, if you would like to offer up an argument countering the statement that pop is crap, I'd love to hear it. Best of luck in that