From: steve (arborealman@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 18:47:29 GMT
To Leland; I sit corrected, I think. You obviosly--know a lot more about
computers than I do. However, what I meant was that any company is free to
produce a superior o.s. and priced lower it would replace windows by the
force of the market.If this is not so please explain why if You think I
will understand it. Further, dont many companys have their trade secrets?
As a resident of boston I know at least one person went to jail for selling
proprietary technolegy concerning Gilletts razor blade construction. And
just try to get recipe out of a chef We stray from our subject. Thanks
Steveq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: MD Quality takes a hit
> On Mar 9, 2004, at 8:46, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> >> Martha was a thief who
> >> illegally received and acted on insider information to enrich herself
> >> and
> >> then lied about it at every turn.
> >
> > How did Martha "enrich herself?" Preserving the value of you assets is
> > hardly "enrichment."
>
> So using fixed dice in Vegas (assuming you could ever get away with it)
> would be a moral exercise? The stock market is a gamble, Martha knows
> that (she was a stock broker, for Pete's sake!). Martha also knows
> people lose money playing the stocks. However, she used a privileged
> piece of information to ensure that she didn't lose on her gamble. She
> abused the system, she cheated. Use whatever term you like, but she was
> in the wrong.
>
> And then, to top it all off, she lied about cheating. I'd have more
> respect for her if she'd been caught with her hand in the cookie jar
> and said "It's a fair cop." We are all responsible for our actions
> (whether "right" or "wrong"), and we have to face consequences when our
> actions take us outside of the social framework of law. If the law is
> just, then the punishment will be. If the law is unjust, then it will
> be changed in the process and our actions will be vindicated.
>
> >> She lied under oath, forged documents,
> >> and even got others to lie and forge on her behalf.
> >
> > An apt description of Clinton's behavior during the Lewinsky affair.
> > Yet
> > do you see him behind bars? Hardly equal, even-handed justice in my
> > book.
>
> Sure, what Clinton did was immoral as far as his relationship with his
> wife went and illegal as far as the marriage was concerned, but it was
> a private matter and had little to do with how he ran the country.
> Martha stole money from investors and endangered the very corporation
> that she founded, which employs thousands of people. Which immoral
> action do you think affected more people?
>
> > The real thief in this story is the Federal Drug Administration which
> > disapproved of ImClone's application for a new anti-cancer drug, and
> > application which they later approved! Your friendly government robbed
> > ImClone investors, not Martha.
>
> The FDA is well within its rights to approve or deny any application it
> likes. I'm not familiar with the 'ins and outs' of the ImClone
> application, I don't know if there were any amendments to it between
> the initial denial and the subsequent approval. Martha, however, is not
> within her rights to use insider information to profit herself on the
> stock market. The FDA acted legally (as far as I know), whereas Martha
> acted illegally.
>
> >> Regardless of the alleged quality of her products or efforts on
> >> behalf of "average shlubs", her refusal to plea to the crime she
> >> actually
> >> committed and decision to lie and cover-up endangered the corporation
> >> she
> >> built and the hundreds, if not thousands, of hard-working "average
> >> shlubs"
> >> who depend on it for their livelihoods.
> >
> > All of which pales in comparison to the coarsening effect on the
> > culture
> > of Clinton's lying and sexual escapades. Furthermore, anyone who
> > depends
> > on someone else for his livelihood better grow up and get some skills
> > that
> > are marketable regardless of who signs their paychecks.
>
> OK, what do Clinton's escapades have to do with Martha's case?
> Clinton's thing is done. It's finished. Get over it. You're comparing
> apples and oranges here. Also, do you mean to tell me you DON'T depend
> on someone else for your livelihood? Do you own your own company? If
> so, do you employ anyone else? Guess what... those people depend on you
> for their livelihood. Pull your head out and take a look around you.
> Contrary to what your comments imply, jobs DON'T grow on trees.
>
> > "The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it
> > weakens a society's Dynamic capability-its capability for change and
> > evolution. It's not the "nice" guys who bring about real social change.
> > "Nice" guys look nice because they're conforming. It's the "bad" guys,
> > who
> > only look nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force
> > in
> > social evolution."
>
> I hardly think Pirsig is condoning wanton ignorance of the law. To be
> honest, I see this as one of the more ambiguous paragraphs in the book.
>
> I'm all for improving the legal system, and DQ is the only thing that
> can do it. What Martha did was not DQ (and it is insulting to DQ to
> suggest that it was). I get the point, you like Martha and are outraged
> that she's been convicted. However, the charges aren't trumped-up. She
> broke the frelling law and now she has to face the consequences. Deal
> with it.
>
> BTW, as far as Bill Clinton is concerned he ALSO broke the law (or at
> least one of society's stronger social moral codes) and he, too, ended
> up facing the consequences, in the form of massive public
> embarrassment. He's fortunate that he couldn't have run for office
> again, since it is certain he would have lost (and by a greater margin
> than Gore lost) because of his actions. Maybe that's why conservatives
> are so pissed at him, he never had anything taken away from him (read,
> the presidency). To some, it looks like he got away with it.
>
> --
> Leland Jory :^{)>
> Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher
>
> "It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go
> away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." -
> Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 09 2004 - 18:50:35 GMT