[tempsy]

What is “dangerous” about it? It isn’t as if the DOJ is the one speculating as to what the motive is or was, it’s that they have specific evidence of communication between Plaid and Visa that spelled out Plaid’s plan to basically “scare” Visa and Visa’s concern of their plan.

This feels like one of those situations where two parties were so conspicuous is making an anti-trust case that the DOJ could not do anything but prosecute.

[bigbubba]

I believe the word 'dangerous' has developed a new meaning; roughly "this doesn't align with my personal politics." Whatever my politics happen to be are assumed by me to be best for society, and consequently anything that doesn't go my way threatens to harm society. For instance, if I were a libertarian I might think that attempts to regulate corporations would create inefficiencies that would harm society by harming the economy. Or if I were a social democrat, I might think that failure to regulate corporations will harm society by letting corporations run rampant on people. In either case, very sure of my own beliefs, it seems self evident to me that those who disagree with me present a danger to society.

That is, unless, I have the humility to earnestly be cognizant of the possibility that I could be wrong about what I believe. If I have that humility, I might choose to temper my criticism of others.