Where to put the dot-com dot

Dear John (uninformed) Whatever (sorry, your name is impossible to pronounce),

Yesterday I wrote about those "analysts" that don't know what a computer or a datacenter is because they never saw anyone, so imagine analyzing something as complex as the economy, even more, the economy related to the computer business. Today you tried to be sooo funny with your blog that you started playing with the words of our dot in the dot-com motto. Ha, ha, ha, I'm still laughing, over all after watching how our stocks raised today more than 6% after reading your article. Maybe this is what the investors want to tell us: to put the dot in the dot com again, or better, in the 2.0 era, as an independent and healthy company.
As I think you have a serous problem with numbers, I'll remind you that before all the IBM affaire our shares were about $4.50, and now, even after IBM dropped the deal, we are still at $6.66 (interesting number to close the session today... What does Scientology has to say about it, MLP?).

John, you are not right in your article: the worst of the options is to by acquired by IBM as this means the death of Sun and the firing of hundreds of workers. What do you think did Mr. Ritter told us in his visit? He asked, pleaded, demanded not to be bought by IBM, as this would mean that his re-election would be endangered by the number of unemployed people rising!!
What kind of a blogger are you? I'm sure you can't tell Vista from OS-X, so imagine if you dare teaching me about a business I invented more than 25 years ago. Why don't you learn from a real professional like Paul Murphy? He is well balanced, not biased, he writes the truth in his articles, and he produces a great beer too.
Paul, I love you. When I take the reigns back I count on you for the PR deparment.

John, whenever you drop by Menlo Park let me know. I'll show you where I put the the hockey stick on those who dare telling me where to put the dot. Ask MLP, he has a clear picture.
And I won't comment on the Gartner analyst that suggest that if we cannot sell the whole company we should sell it by pieces. This analyst is the one that says that "the company is too complex" and suggests that many line of products don't make sense and nobody wants them. Is that the same Gartner analyst that rated Sun and all Sun products as Positive and Strong Positive? Was he drunk when he did the first anlysis, is drunk now, has suddenly seen the light? Or is it only that they say what they think will be accepted by most of the other analysts?
Maybe the question is just money.

By the way, instead of commenting about the rumor of today, I'll advance the rumors of tomorrow: Today we, the board, are meeting to discuss the future after the no deal with IBM, as it was a rumor, and we don't comment on rumors. So the rumors about today's meeting will be spread tomorrow, no doubt about it.

Say NO to IBM.
Say NO to Schwartz.