Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-29 Thread John S. Giltner, Jr.
PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:48 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue On Aug 28, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote: - Seems to me that the carrier would be

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-29 Thread Ed Gould
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:48 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue On Aug 28, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Rick Fochtman

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-29 Thread Hardee, Charles H
@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue On Aug 28, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote: > - > Seems to me that the carrier would be responsible for the damages. > That's why carriers buy insurance! But t

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-28 Thread Ed Gould
On Aug 28, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Rick Fochtman wrote: - Seems to me that the carrier would be responsible for the damages. That's why carriers buy insurance! But then again, who supplied the fork lift and operator? Microsoft?:) --

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-28 Thread Rick Fochtman
--- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/27/forklift_ibm_server/ It looked to me like it was a mainframe that fell but its somewhat vague. - Seems to me that the carrier would be re

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-28 Thread Pommier, Rex R.
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-28 Thread Craddock, Chris
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/27/forklift_ibm_server/ > > > >It looked to me like it was a mainframe that fell but its somewhat > >vague. > > > Could the US Patent & Trade Office be coming back into the mainframe FOLD. > Back in the 1990s, the PTO (with great fanfare) kicked out the ugly

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-28 Thread Chase, John
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jim Marshall > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/27/forklift_ibm_server/ > > > >It looked to me like it was a mainframe that fell but its somewhat > >vague. > > > Could the US Patent & Trade Office be coming bac

Re: IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-28 Thread Jim Marshall
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/27/forklift_ibm_server/ > >It looked to me like it was a mainframe that fell but its somewhat >vague. > Could the US Patent & Trade Office be coming back into the mainframe FOLD. Back in the 1990s, the PTO (with great fanfare) kicked out the ugly mainframe in

IBM Blamed for Server packaging issue

2007-08-27 Thread Ed Gould
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/27/forklift_ibm_server/ It looked to me like it was a mainframe that fell but its somewhat vague. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAI