9 Apr
2013
9 Apr
'13
4:14 p.m.
On 9-apr-2013 16:45, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
Coward? Nah, cowards don't come back for
more. And I didn't call
you a nut, I just implied in a round-about way that you seem to be a
person in the conspiracy theory camp.
So, how is that not equivalent to calling someone a 'nut'?
Also, how are the bank bail-outs a "conspiracy"? Then the entire
media of various countries have been reporting on a "conspiracy
theory"? Then the U.S. Congress, various European governments,
etc. have not really concealed those "conspiracies" much either,
or have they?
As for your claim of IBM "...don't want
people (and the /little
people/ in particular) to find out that they've been providing the
"mainframe" backbone for all those /nice/ bailed-out banks..." it does
strike me as a conspiracy theory, hence my wise-crack.
Why is that a "conspiracy theory"? IBM, as others have said, does
a lot of business supposedly with these banks. Or are you hereby
saying that that is a hoax?
You may want to take that up with the IBM propagandists, in other
words.
However, if you can provide evidence to back this
up (not counting
blogs from some unknown guy & dubious news articles) I will change my
mind.
(Re-)Read this thread for starters, see the claims of "z" being very
proliferated in the world of big banking.
As for their bank customers, couldn't one
find that info out
from IBM's SEC filings?
I guess so? (I'm not from America.)
- MG