Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban - Linux ; In article , Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Bizarre indeed. According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft told the EPA to lean on IBM. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

  1. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    In article <47F36F09.47A6917F@web.de>,
    Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > Bizarre indeed.


    According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the
    work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft
    told the EPA to lean on IBM.

    Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:50:01 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <47F36F09.47A6917F@web.de>,
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>
    >> Bizarre indeed.

    >
    > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the
    > work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft
    > told the EPA to lean on IBM.
    >
    > Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.


    It's Slashdot, what do you expect?
    Groklaw is another land of fantasy and frolics.

    The only accomplishment these loony toons can lay claim to is that they, by
    their absurd reactions, make real, sincere Linux advocates look like fools
    by association.

    Roy has been shilling his own posts on digg.com lately BTW.
    He generally starts off with at least 4 or 5 diggs within seconds of
    posting an article.

    On another note, flatfish is getting fried by the Linux/ODF fanbois....
    over on digg.com
    The blind eyed ones still can't see the truth and separate the message from
    Roy's motives.
    It did help Roy get to most popular though, which I suppose his masters
    will reward him for.

    Hahaha!
    This stuff is a riot!

    Roy must be in heavan!


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article <47F36F09.47A6917F@web.de>,
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>
    >> Bizarre indeed.

    >
    > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the
    > work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft
    > told the EPA to lean on IBM.
    >
    > Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.


    Is this another one of your mystical transmogrifications of fact to
    fiction?

    Or just another usage of useless blog quotes to make fun of someone
    else?

    --
    It's not manufacturers trying to rip anybody off or anything like that.
    There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of.
    -- Bill Gates, Interview with Dennis Bathory-Kitsz in 80 Microcomputing (1980)

  4. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban


    "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    news:l07q5rlricgr.4um6phjcjikm$.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:50:01 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article <47F36F09.47A6917F@web.de>,
    >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Bizarre indeed.

    >>
    >> According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the
    >> work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft
    >> told the EPA to lean on IBM.
    >>
    >> Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.

    >
    > It's Slashdot, what do you expect?
    > Groklaw is another land of fantasy and frolics.
    >
    > The only accomplishment these loony toons can lay claim to is that they,
    > by
    > their absurd reactions, make real, sincere Linux advocates look like fools
    > by association.
    >
    > Roy has been shilling his own posts on digg.com lately BTW.
    > He generally starts off with at least 4 or 5 diggs within seconds of
    > posting an article.
    >
    > On another note, flatfish is getting fried by the Linux/ODF fanbois....
    > over on digg.com
    > The blind eyed ones still can't see the truth and separate the message
    > from
    > Roy's motives.
    > It did help Roy get to most popular though, which I suppose his masters
    > will reward him for.
    >
    > Hahaha!
    > This stuff is a riot!
    >
    > Roy must be in heavan!


    To these paranoid loons, there's a Microsoft bogey-man behind every tree.
    One minute Microsoft is incompetent and the next minute Microsoft controls
    every aspect of world governments.



    > --
    > Moshe Goldfarb
    > Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    > Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    > http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > In article <47F36F09.47A6917F@web.de>,
    > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Bizarre indeed.

    > >
    > > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the
    > > work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft
    > > told the EPA to lean on IBM.
    > >
    > > Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.

    >
    > Is this another one of your mystical transmogrifications of fact to
    > fiction?
    >
    > Or just another usage of useless blog quotes to make fun of someone
    > else?


    Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. I don't
    know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.

    I'm curious. Is there anything that, if Roy blamed it on Microsoft, you
    would think he's being overly paranoid?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: Bizarre IBM Ban

    On Apr 5, 2:09*pm, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *Linonut wrote:
    > > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    > > > In article <47F36F09.47A69...@web.de>,
    > > > *Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    >
    > > >> Bizarre indeed.

    >
    > > > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the
    > > > work of Microsoft. *To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft
    > > > told the EPA to lean on IBM.

    >
    > > > Seriously. *Someone is actually advancing that theory.

    >
    > > Is this another one of your mystical transmogrifications of fact to
    > > fiction?

    >
    > > Or just another usage of useless blog quotes to make fun of someone
    > > else?

    >
    > Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. *I don't
    > know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    > that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.
    >
    > I'm curious. *Is there anything that, if Roy blamed it on Microsoft, you
    > would think he's being overly paranoid?
    >


    Microsoft started the war in Iraq. No more blood for .dlls!

  7. Re: Bizarre IBM Ban


    "cc" wrote in message
    news:23e9931b-43ae-4ada-81e0-6d5c0ba7f442@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
    On Apr 5, 2:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    >>
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >> > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >>
    >> > > In article <47F36F09.47A69...@web.de>,
    >> > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    >>
    >> > >> Bizarre indeed.

    >>
    >> > > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly
    >> > > the
    >> > > work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML,
    >> > > Microsoft
    >> > > told the EPA to lean on IBM.

    >>
    >> > > Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.

    >>
    >> > Is this another one of your mystical transmogrifications of fact to
    >> > fiction?

    >>
    >> > Or just another usage of useless blog quotes to make fun of someone
    >> > else?

    >>
    >> Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. I don't
    >> know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    >> that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.
    >>
    >> I'm curious. Is there anything that, if Roy blamed it on Microsoft, you
    >> would think he's being overly paranoid?
    >>


    > Microsoft started the war in Iraq. No more blood for .dlls!


    Not only that. New Orleans flooded during Hurricane Katrina because
    Microsoft steered the hurricane into the city then they blew up the levees.
    Roy Schestowitz has "evidence" on his trojan infected website that he
    received from an anonymous email.






    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  8. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >> > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly the
    >> > work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML, Microsoft
    >> > told the EPA to lean on IBM.
    >> >
    >> > Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.

    >>
    >> Is this another one of your mystical transmogrifications of fact to
    >> fiction?
    >>
    >> Or just another usage of useless blog quotes to make fun of someone
    >> else?

    >
    > Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. I don't
    > know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    > that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.


    Did Roy post a link to a story, or did he add a comment that indicates
    he believes that theory?

    I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, though, if he wants to answer.

    > I'm curious. Is there anything that, if Roy blamed it on Microsoft, you
    > would think he's being overly paranoid?


    As I've stated before, I take each post, even yours, and think about
    them myself.

    Right now, I don't think you are being very logical here, based on what
    you post.

    >> > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?)....


    See what I mean?

    I actually think you are more biased than I am. Maybe even more biased
    than Roy.

    I didn't bother backtracking to Terekhov's post, because he's simply a
    monomaniacal troll who, at best, quotes legal verbiage out of context.

    --
    Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam every day. Much
    of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It would be funny if
    it weren't so irritating.
    -- Bill Gates, "Why I Hate Spam" in Microsoft PressPass (2003)

  9. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. I don't
    > > know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    > > that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.

    >
    > Did Roy post a link to a story, or did he add a comment that indicates
    > he believes that theory?
    >
    > I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, though, if he wants to answer.


    He wrote a very long article about it, weaving together all kinds of
    random things (many of which turn out to not actually be true...) as all
    indicating that Microsoft was behind IBM's EPA trouble. You can read it
    all on his blog if you want. It is recent enough to find easily.

    ....
    > I didn't bother backtracking to Terekhov's post, because he's simply a
    > monomaniacal troll who, at best, quotes legal verbiage out of context.


    His "legal verbiage" is almost always correct. Offhand, I can't think
    of a time he's been wrong, in fact.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  10. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    Tim Smith writes:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. I don't
    >> > know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    >> > that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.

    >>
    >> Did Roy post a link to a story, or did he add a comment that indicates
    >> he believes that theory?
    >>
    >> I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, though, if he wants to answer.

    >
    > He wrote a very long article about it, weaving together all kinds of
    > random things (many of which turn out to not actually be true...) as all
    > indicating that Microsoft was behind IBM's EPA trouble. You can read it
    > all on his blog if you want. It is recent enough to find easily.
    >
    > ...
    >> I didn't bother backtracking to Terekhov's post, because he's simply a
    >> monomaniacal troll who, at best, quotes legal verbiage out of context.

    >
    > His "legal verbiage" is almost always correct. Offhand, I can't think
    > of a time he's been wrong, in fact.


    Hence the fact that a hypocrite and liar like Liarbut, who rarely reads
    what he replies to anyway, would not actually study his posts.

    Liarnut has rapidly entered the Roy level of hypocrisy and idiocy.

    --
    ok, I will not marry Jo-Con-El's cow.

  11. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    In article ,
    reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...
    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    > > > Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. I don't
    > > > know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    > > > that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.

    > >
    > > Did Roy post a link to a story, or did he add a comment that indicates
    > > he believes that theory?
    > >
    > > I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, though, if he wants to answer.

    >
    > He wrote a very long article about it, weaving together all kinds of
    > random things (many of which turn out to not actually be true...) as all
    > indicating that Microsoft was behind IBM's EPA trouble. You can read it
    > all on his blog if you want. It is recent enough to find easily.


    "Several IBM employees allegedly obtained protected information from an
    EPA employee, "which IBM officials knew was improperly acquired, and
    used the information during its negotiations to improve its chance of
    winning a contract," according to the agreement [between IBM and the EPA
    that lifted the ban]. Such an act violated federal procedures.

    IBM has placed five individuals on administrative leave pending its own
    internal investigation and any federal probe, the agreement said."

    --
    "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
    those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown

  12. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    * Greg Cox peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > "Several IBM employees allegedly obtained protected information from an
    > EPA employee, "which IBM officials knew was improperly acquired, and
    > used the information during its negotiations to improve its chance of
    > winning a contract," according to the agreement [between IBM and the EPA
    > that lifted the ban]. Such an act violated federal procedures.
    >
    > IBM has placed five individuals on administrative leave pending its own
    > internal investigation and any federal probe, the agreement said."
    >


    Now the question is, who blew the whistle?

    --
    If you show people the problems and you show people the solutions they will be
    moved to act.
    -- Bill Gates, At Live8 (2 July 2005) as reported in BBC News (4 July 2005)

  13. Re: Bizarre IBM Ban

    On Apr 5, 3:24*pm, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    > "cc" wrote in message
    >
    > news:23e9931b-43ae-4ada-81e0-6d5c0ba7f442@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
    > On Apr 5, 2:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article ,

    >
    > >> Linonut wrote:
    > >> > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    > >> > > In article <47F36F09.47A69...@web.de>,
    > >> > > Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    >
    > >> > >> Bizarre indeed.

    >
    > >> > > According to an anonymous poster on Slashdot (Roy?), this is clearly
    > >> > > the
    > >> > > work of Microsoft. To punish IBM for fighting against OOXML,
    > >> > > Microsoft
    > >> > > told the EPA to lean on IBM.

    >
    > >> > > Seriously. Someone is actually advancing that theory.

    >
    > >> > Is this another one of your mystical transmogrifications of fact to
    > >> > fiction?

    >
    > >> > Or just another usage of useless blog quotes to make fun of someone
    > >> > else?

    >
    > >> Roy has now posted that theory himself to his site and here. I don't
    > >> know if he was the anonymous slashdot poster or not, but my observation
    > >> that it was a very Roy-like theory turns out to be correct.

    >
    > >> I'm curious. Is there anything that, if Roy blamed it on Microsoft, you
    > >> would think he's being overly paranoid?

    >
    > > Microsoft started the war in Iraq. No more blood for .dlls!

    >
    > Not only that. New Orleans flooded during Hurricane Katrina because
    > Microsoft steered the hurricane into the city then they blew up the levees..
    > Roy Schestowitz has "evidence" on his trojan infected website that he
    > received from an anonymous email.
    >


    Most of the natural disasters throughout history were caused by
    Microsoft. Steve Ballmer is responsible for the black jellybean. Bill
    Gates double dips. Microsoft is a staunch supporter of death by
    dismemberment. I can name more. And I will. Steve Ballmer wastes
    precious electricity on a nightlight for his children. He only tips
    30%.

  14. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    In article <8aeKj.18322$9O.3597@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    linonut@bollsouth.nut says...
    > * Greg Cox peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > "Several IBM employees allegedly obtained protected information from an
    > > EPA employee, "which IBM officials knew was improperly acquired, and
    > > used the information during its negotiations to improve its chance of
    > > winning a contract," according to the agreement [between IBM and the EPA
    > > that lifted the ban]. Such an act violated federal procedures.
    > >
    > > IBM has placed five individuals on administrative leave pending its own
    > > internal investigation and any federal probe, the agreement said."
    > >

    >
    > Now the question is, who blew the whistle?
    >


    I don't know the answer to that one but it seems to me that the EPA
    wouldn't have gone to the trouble of officially suspending IBM if IBM
    blew the whistle on themselves. My wild ass guess is that it was the
    EPA employee shooting off his mouth at the wrong place / wrong time.
    --
    "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
    those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown

  15. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    In article <89eKj.18321$9O.9942@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    Linonut wrote:
    >
    > http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/05/...ibm-epa-proxy/
    >


    The best part of that was the little side rant about Intel, and how
    their selling processors to Asus for the EEE, without which the EEE
    would not exist, is bad. Yet in other stories and posts, he's praised
    the EEE.

    See the pattern? Intel, like Microsoft is bad. So, *everything* they
    do is automatically evil. Linux on small computers is good, so the EEE
    is good, even though it would not have been possible with Intel's evil
    support.

    This is why Roy is *completely* worthless as a news source. What he
    says is determined almost entirely by what he wants the outcome to be,
    at that particular moment, with almost no connection to the input, or
    without any constraint of maintaining some kind of consistency.

    > >> I didn't bother backtracking to Terekhov's post, because he's simply a
    > >> monomaniacal troll who, at best, quotes legal verbiage out of context.

    > >
    > > His "legal verbiage" is almost always correct. Offhand, I can't think
    > > of a time he's been wrong, in fact.

    >
    > That's why I note that it is out-of-context i.e. meaningless to the
    > discussion at hand.
    >
    > I'm glad you could make some sense out of what he said. I never could.
    > He seemed mostly to be making fun of Eben Moglen.


    If you go read the cases he cites, though, when making fun of Moglen, it
    usually turns out that he's right, in that the position the courts have
    taken matches Terekhov's claims, rather than Moglen's theories as to
    what the court's *should* do.

    Law is an experimental pursuit, not a theoretical pursuit. When the
    courts disagrees with your theory, your theory loses.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:55:41 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > This is why Roy is *completely* worthless as a news source. What he
    > says is determined almost entirely by what he wants the outcome to be,
    > at that particular moment, with almost no connection to the input, or
    > without any constraint of maintaining some kind of consistency.


    Sort of, in reality Roy looks at every news story he reads with the thought
    "How can I twist this into an anti-Microsoft or pro-linux story?"

    This is why you get stories about the latest piece of hardware that "runs
    linux" even though many times it also runs Windows or VxWorks or other
    embedded OS's.

    This mindset also explains why his headlines are often times lies, because
    he's twisting a story into what he wants it to be, not what it really is.
    Notice how every post about has "approaching debt" in it. In his mind,
    debt is something bad, despite the fact most companies routinely operate
    for decades with debt. Microsoft has, for the last 10+ years been almost
    unique in not having any long term debt (and it's not clear if they do
    aquire any debt whether it will be long term either), but yet somehow this
    is an example of Microsoft dying.

    His single minded fascination with twisting the truth to fit his view of
    things makes him ridiculously ineffectual.

    Another great example is how, when his web site was hacked, he first
    claimed it wasn't hacked, then his excuse was that it was 3rd party
    software and the same flaws affected Windows, so it wasn't his or Linux's
    fault, despite the fact that he's the first to blame Windows for 3rd party
    software failures, even those that also affect Linux versions of that
    software.

  17. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > This is why Roy is *completely* worthless as a news source. What he
    > says is determined almost entirely by what he wants the outcome to be,
    > at that particular moment, with almost no connection to the input, or
    > without any constraint of maintaining some kind of consistency.


    You haven't actually followed /any/ of the links he posts, have you?

    > If you go read the cases he cites, though, when making fun of Moglen, it
    > usually turns out that he's right, in that the position the courts have
    > taken matches Terekhov's claims, rather than Moglen's theories as to
    > what the court's *should* do.


    Tell me, Tim. Have you read /every/ post of Terekhov's?

    > Law is an experimental pursuit, not a theoretical pursuit. When the
    > courts disagrees with your theory, your theory loses.


    True. I will simply note that I first saw Terekhov trolling
    gnu.misc.discuss, and that presenting a 99% valid post is a prerequisite
    to a good troll.

    As you no doubt understand quite well.

    --
    I really had a lot of dreams when I was a kid, and I think a great deal of
    that grew out of the fact that I had a chance to read a lot.
    -- Bill Gates

  18. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:55:41 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> This is why Roy is *completely* worthless as a news source. What he
    >> says is determined almost entirely by what he wants the outcome to be,
    >> at that particular moment, with almost no connection to the input, or
    >> without any constraint of maintaining some kind of consistency.

    >
    > Sort of, in reality Roy looks at every news story he reads with the thought
    > "How can I twist this into an anti-Microsoft or pro-linux story?"


    Oh, I suspect you may be correct.

    > This is why you get stories about the latest piece of hardware that "runs
    > linux" even though many times it also runs Windows or VxWorks or other
    > embedded OS's.


    No, those you get because they run Linux. Duh-uh!

    > His single minded fascination with twisting the truth to fit his view of
    > things makes him ridiculously ineffectual.


    As does your single-minded fascination....

    > Another great example is how, when his web site was hacked, he first
    > claimed it wasn't hacked, then his excuse was that it was 3rd party
    > software and the same flaws affected Windows, so it wasn't his or Linux's
    > fault, despite the fact that he's the first to blame Windows for 3rd party
    > software failures, even those that also affect Linux versions of that
    > software.


    Roy just needs to suck it up and face facts directly, sometimes.

    Not nearly as often as you and Tim like to claim, however. Your own
    (the both of yas) posts are equally in need of further investigation and
    vetting.

    --
    It's possible, you can never know, that the universe exists only for me. If so,
    it's sure going well for me, I must admit.
    -- Bill Gates, TIME magazine Vol. 149, No. 2 (13 January 1997)

  19. Re: [News] Bizarre IBM Ban

    * Greg Cox peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article <8aeKj.18322$9O.3597@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    > linonut@bollsouth.nut says...
    >> * Greg Cox peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >> > "Several IBM employees allegedly obtained protected information from an
    >> > EPA employee, "which IBM officials knew was improperly acquired, and
    >> > used the information during its negotiations to improve its chance of
    >> > winning a contract," according to the agreement [between IBM and the EPA
    >> > that lifted the ban]. Such an act violated federal procedures.
    >> >
    >> > IBM has placed five individuals on administrative leave pending its own
    >> > internal investigation and any federal probe, the agreement said."
    >> >

    >>
    >> Now the question is, who blew the whistle?

    >
    > I don't know the answer to that one but it seems to me that the EPA
    > wouldn't have gone to the trouble of officially suspending IBM if IBM
    > blew the whistle on themselves. My wild ass guess is that it was the
    > EPA employee shooting off his mouth at the wrong place / wrong time.


    Could be, although presumably employees at most organizations,
    especially those who have been burned before, receive what I'll
    euphemistically call "Ethics Training".

    --
    I'm sorry that we have to have a Washington presence. We thrived during our
    first 16 years without any of this. I never made a political visit to
    Washington and we had no people here. It wasn't on our radar screen. We were
    just making great software.
    -- Bill Gates

+ Reply to Thread