* Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008 Mar 18 15:09 -0500]: > On Mon, March 17, 2008 10:10 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On 03/17/08 20:43, Nate Bargmann wrote: > >> Perhaps it is something uniquely American, but the key to understanding > >> Ron's association is the wine tasting example given in the article. As > >> mentioned earlier in the thread, the sex scandal mentioned only > >> guaranteed more people would read the article. > > >> Hmmmm, kind of proves the point! > > Not really, Nate, look how many people didn't read the article because > of the sex scandal lead. :P
And I gather that the two that posted about not reading it that I replied to are not in the USA where such a salacious lead-in works all too well quite often. > > Back to computers: > > We're such a successful company, we can afford to buy Tier 1 kit, > > and send all that money to MSFT. And because we do, we *must* > > be getting good stuff. > > > (If that is, actually, an actual upper-management though process.) > > Ron... You know that's exactly actual upper-management thought process. > :) I'm tempted to say that "upper-management thought" creates an oxymoron until the word "process" is added behind them. Then it makes all too much sense. :( - Nate >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
