> Now that the thread has digressed away from the original topic, perhaps
> we can let it drop.  While I still find the information from this thread
> to be somewhat enlightening, but I suspect it's usefulness might not be
> up to the standards of the list.  Could we just drop it while we are
> still ahead of the game?

No.

Because we're still behind the game. The point I was making, and 
lacked the articulateness to do so, was that the arguments _for_ 
PayPal are principally identical to the arguments I've heard _for_ 
the dominant operating system. It surprised me on a Linux list, 
so I responded with the proposal that someone consider an 
alternative.

Could've been any alternative. I happened to choose one which 
is also locally based, and historically older, therefore IMHO more 
credible than PayPal.

Why? You may see a knee jerking, but there is more happening 
than that.

It is more because I support Linux intrinsically.

This means that I support it on a principled level, which means that, 
yes, I do choose the road less traveled just because it is less traveled. 
Yet I choose it, each time, with the sober analysis you mentioned. 
In general, I have found the road well travelled is boring and repetitive
(and redundant and cyclical and repeats itself and goes nowhere). Of 
course it is more sound, weighing in well from a sober analysis.
The predominant/popular solution often seems that way. And
sometimes it is appropriate, as in the examples you provided about
breathing air. And here, I am proposing that it may not be.

Now for more. "Intrinsically" supporting Linux? What's that mean?

This means that if/when Linux becomes the road most travelled, if
it degrades from its originating principles, then I will promptly walk 
away, turning to the voice in the wilderness again, leaving behind 
Linux. 

Why? Because there is a fatal flaw that is inherent to nearly any 
dominant system. It tries to assimilate beyond its original purpose. 
What happens when a technically superior product like Linux assumes 
this trajectory? It would be worse than Windows doing so, because 
the same criticisms we have of Windows would become true of Linux, 
yet we'd be fighting against, say, Linus Torvalds as the richest man in 
the world instead of Bill Gates. And between the two, I prefer the 
one whose fatal flaws are easier to see, because I'm stupid.

My non-support of PayPal was rhetorically valid, since I provided
and attempted to justify a legitimate alternative. I hold to it, yet
am somewhat out of my arena, because I still prefer Postal Money
Orders. And travelling by bicycle...

Regarding the road less travelled and being able to discern which
is which, I discovered and heavily used Google well before they
were the dominant search engine, and was delighted and inspired
by their ad-free approach. Now they are by far the largest, and I
have not yet seen them walk away from their originating principles
which I admired. I hold my breath, but am inspired when I read things
like this (recently published).

"Principles that guide our business."

http://www.google.com/corporate/today.html

-Jared

P.S. (Nearly entirely unrelated) Since you mentioned breathing air as
something wise to do even though most others do it, for those who are 
interested, the dominant operating system of "eating food" may not be 
necessary. Now how about that?

http://www.breatharian.com/secret.html

Excerpt: "The Breatharian needs air and Sunlight only, and nothing more to 
sustain his body. The world is flooded with books on food and eating.  No one 
seems to realize that eating is not natural, but an acquired habit, like 
smoking and drinking, and that FRESH CLEAN AIR is the Cosmic Reservoir of all 
things, including the substance that builds and sustains the human body. 
Science has shown that the body is built of cells, which are composed of 
molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of electrons, 
which are nothing more than whirling centers of force in the ether. Electrons 
do not eat, atoms do not eat, molecules do not eat, cells do not eat, and the 
body is built of and sustained by the cells, and not by what man eats.  More 
proof that eating is only a very bad habit, appears in the fact that a sick 
person often begins at once to recover their health when given no food, and 
even shows signs of GROWING YOUNGER.  This could not be, and it would be 
dangerous for one to fast, if eating were natural and food were needed to 
sustain the body."

-Jared again