Noons said:
> Mark A allegedly said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2004 11:21 PM:
>
>> IBM became a monopoly on the mainframe platform long before Reagan was
>> president.
>
> And that "proves" Reagan did not favor IBM because?......

Because my database vendor can beat up your database vendor.

> > Their biggest growth period was the 1960's and 1970's when there
>> were quite a few Democratic presidents, and when Democrats completely
>> controlled the House of Representatives, and usually controlled the
>> Senate.
>
> And for that they copped it. And Reagan removed the restriction,
> thereby ensuring it REMAINED a monopoly. That's what "favored"
> means, BTW.

They copped it because they let IBM retain a monopoly on pcm hardware?
Ronald Reagan removed something that the democrats were doing that didn't
stop IBM being a monopoly and that didn't stop IBM being a monopoly
either?

In the Queen's language that I speak, a market where prices are controlled
by a small number of suppliers is called an oligopoly. And I think we've
established that there are at least two suppliers of IBM mainframe
compatible hardware (of which one is IBM) -- and in those days there might
have been even more.

I don't know why your panties are in such a wedge about IBM's control of
pcm hardware. Do you get this het up about Sun's control of Java?

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche

"I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't get my head up my ass"
- JCH

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"
- Marco

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
sending to informix-list