frank nelson wrote:
--- John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 10 May 2007, frank nelson wrote:
Says you.
Find me ONE published report of Ballmer
retracting
his claim.
Just one !!!
... Waiting!!!
You made the original claim, not me.
--- John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, frank nelson wrote:
You used the word still as in ongoing. These are
all from last year. If you have nothing newer to
cite, your claim is false.
Says you.
Find me ONE published report of Ballmer retracting
his
On Thursday 10 May 2007, frank nelson wrote:
Says you.
Find me ONE published report of Ballmer retracting
his claim.
Just one !!!
... Waiting!!!
You made the original claim, not me. Unless you cam
substantiate the claim, with recent cites, the claim,
as stated, is false.
On Thursday 10 May 2007 23:33, frank nelson wrote:
I can only conclude that you knew the
statement was false, yet made it anyway, making you a
liar, and no more to be believed than Mr. Ballmer.
John is a straight shooter, and history favors his side of this
discussion. A
strong
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, frank nelson wrote:
You used the word still as in ongoing. These are all
from last year. If you have nothing newer to cite,
your claim is false.
Says you.
Find me ONE published report of Ballmer retracting his claim.
Just one !!!
... Waiting!!!
Who appointed you
On May 08, 07 14:57:31 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer is still
claiming Linux violates MS IP
Any cites for this statement? Its just FUD.
If I need to cite that for you, you must have
There is an old maxim in American business:
If you can't beat'em, buy'em.
M$ can't buy Linux, it knows that there is only so much that it
can do with Windows before it morphs into a _nix, so they are
getting positioned to partner big time and drive that morph
to their money-in-the-pocket
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Stevens wrote:
Whatever,
with the big three at work, I would bet that it will happen and in such
a way as for everyone involved (Suse, M$ and Dell) to make a buck
or two.
This assumes that there will indeed be some work done.
I don't see it that way.
I have not seen
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:43:41AM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Stevens wrote:
Whatever,
with the big three at work, I would bet that it will happen and in such
a way as for everyone involved (Suse, M$ and Dell) to make a buck
or two.
This assumes that there will
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer is still
claiming Linux violates MS IP
Any cites for this statement? Its just FUD.
If I need to cite that for you, you must have been stationed
on Mars for the last year.
--
_
On 5/8/07, John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Stevens wrote:
Whatever,
with the big three at work, I would bet that it will happen and in such
a way as for everyone involved (Suse, M$ and Dell) to make a buck
or two.
This assumes that there will indeed be some
John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Stevens wrote:
Whatever,
with the big three at work, I would bet that it will happen and in such
a way as for everyone involved (Suse, M$ and Dell) to make a buck
or two.
This assumes that there will indeed be some work done.
I don't see it that
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:49 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer is still
claiming Linux violates MS IP
Any cites for this statement? Its just FUD.
If I need to cite that for you, you must have been stationed
on Mars
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:49 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer is still
claiming Linux violates MS IP
Any cites for this statement? Its just FUD.
If I need to cite
On 5/8/07, John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it interesting that Mr Hovsepian seems to know all about this issue
and is worried about it enough to address it on Novell's web site, but
yet Mr Meissner remains ignorant of the issue.
Head in sand Marcus?
These are all old, dating to
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 14:50, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
the more MS proclaims it, the less credible it is...
When is M$ lying...
... when their mouth(s) move.
(the more they move, the worse it gets)
--
Kind regards,
M Harris
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:41, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:49 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer is still
claiming Linux violates MS IP
Any cites for this statement? Its just FUD.
If I need to
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 14:35 -0700, Robert Smits wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:41, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:49 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer is still
claiming Linux violates MS IP
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 14:35 -0700, Robert Smits wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:41, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:49 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer
Hi John,
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 14:57 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 14:35 -0700, Robert Smits wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:41, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:49 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday
--- John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:49 -0800, John Andersen
wrote:
On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote:
Much posturing, but Balmer is still
claiming Linux violates MS IP
21 matches
Mail list logo
