7 Apr
2013
7 Apr
'13
11:44 p.m.
On 7-apr-2013 23:40, Dave McGuire wrote:
For the record, you have been spouting off for two
days about how
dead the mainframe is. You've been doing a lot more than just quoting
an article written by a journalist who knows even less about this stuff
than you do.
Most of the time I'm not even asserting things, just stating my own
personal observations, predictions and cross-referencing such
articles. You may not like it, but you haven't refuted anything
of it either. That alone tells me a lot.
YOU have been railing on and on, including your
dreaded ad hominem
attacks
Show me one, let alone one that preceded any other.
as if it's your personal mission in life to CAUSE
the mainframe
industryto die.
You're kidding... right? (If I could remotely cause that, on my own,
then what does that tell you about that industry?)
You started this pointless drivel by mentioning (not
even quoting,
that I recall, just MENTIONING, but I could be wrong about that) an
article published in a good but notoriously "oooh shiny" publication.
You haven't refuted a single thing. Not having quoted? (Maybe I too
easily assumed that you could read it? Excuse me for that.)
An article, I might add, that was very
poorly-researched.
Again, what exactly is poorly-researched about it?
IBM doesn't mind. Their customers don't
mind. Why do YOU
mind?
Actual customers, or invisible ones, like their mainframes and
quasi-mainframes are increasingly becoming?
If I mind it? No, IBM can die if it wants to. I'm just trying
to diffuse and refute mind-boggling IBM propaganda, that I've
been hearing for ages.
- MG