Re: SO BALLMER THINKS LARRY IS ALL WRONG, EH?!?

From: J Perry Fecteau <perryfecteau_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:17:38 -0500
Message-ID: <3A14BF72.4090901_at_yahoo.com>


definitely not the same company that owns 90% of the fortune 500!

J.T. Marlin Corrupter wrote:

> Who owns 90-95% of the desktops?
> "J Perry Fecteau" <perryfecteau_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A13627E.5090304_at_yahoo.com...
> 

>> so steve ballmer says that larry ellison's vision won't work.
>> hmmmm... is this the same larry ellison that runs the company whose
>> software will be used in citibank's GLOBAL ecommerce initiative?? is
>> the the same larry ellison whose company grew application sales over
>> 60% and profits over 100% WITHOUT HAVING TO SELL INVESTMENTS?!?!
>> when was the last time ballmer's company saw this kind of growth in
>> application sales??? oh you mean the same larry ellison whose
>> company has well over 75% of the top 1000 businesses in the country??
>> is this the same steve ballmer that doesn't have the BALLS to tell
>> gates to back off and let him run the company like a ceo should. the
>> same steve ballmer whose company's application sales grew a meager
>> less than 10%. the same steve ballmer whose company said that sql
>> server 7.0 would DESTROY oracle's market share despite the fact that
>> it runs 100 times slower than oracle??
>>
>> here's a quote from ballmer:
>>
>> "i think larry's probably going to give the same tired old view of
>> computing, and i think that's out of step."
>>
>> is this the same steve ballmer whose bitchmaster, bill gates, stood
>> on the stage and "predicted" that the pc is still relevant despite a
>> major slowdown in sales and the plummeting of the share price of his
>> other bitch's company (dell) and other pc manufacturers.
>>
>> HEY BALLMER, HERE'S YOUR FIRST CLUE:
>>
>> ORACLE'S STRATEGY IS **ALREADY** WORKING!!!
>>
>> HERE'S YOUR SECOND CLUE:
>>
>> YOU NEED TO GET GATES OFF OF YOUR BACK AND START WORRYING ABOUT YOUR OWN
>> COMPANY INSTEAD OF ELLISON'S!!!!
>>
>>
  Received on Fri Nov 17 2000 - 06:17:38 CET

Original text of this message