9 Apr
2013
9 Apr
'13
5:15 p.m.
On 04/09/2013 11:14 AM, MG wrote:
I've followed this thread, since I was the one who posted the email
that started this brouhaha. Haven't seen any proof, links to good sources.
Not being a financial guy, I honestly don't know either. Anyone?
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
Registered Linux user number 464583
"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
- from some guy on the internet.
On 9-apr-2013 16:45, Dave Woyciesjes wrote:
Because when the word nut is used in this slang way, it means the
person is crazy and should be committed. Conspiracy-theoriest, however,
are not crazy. They just believe things are different from what others
believe.
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?
I don't believe that I stated the bail-outs were a conspiracy, or at
least I did not intend to. It was your claim of IBM trying to hide the
fact that they supply mainframes to those bank, that sounds like a
conspiracy theory to me. Again, if you have proof of them doing this,
then I will change my tune on that.
As has been mentioned before, and Liam did it the best.. IBM doesn't
need to talk about their mainframe customers publicly. They could if
they want; but in that league, personal contact is the way to do it.
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.
It is your use of phrases like that, "propagandists", that lead people
to believe you are trolling. If you could rephrase that, it would go a
long way.
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.)