 | | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
I decided to go back and see what the actual story here was, that is, what it was I actually said that started this thread. Every one has been making assumptions about it, even me. In a post which I otherwise heavily trimmed, Bruce said the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) even (...) Yep, and we collectively agreed that the more successful people would do the major part in paying these taxes. Against their will (and rights) of course. (...) can't (...) People who are on (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An Alternative..
|
|
Sorry Richard, this has been sitting in my draft folder... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) <snip> (...) country (...) agree, (...) almost (...) That depends on geography. The Federal government doesn't exert that much control here. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Note carefully that there is no claim that the following is *practical* or a good idea. Merely that it is doable. In fact it is hugely impractical and a terrible idea. Lightning is a good thing, actually, despite the fact that sometimes it (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Yes, you're right. I should have been more careful in snipping attributions, when doing so might have left the wrong impression. I've apologised for that. I'll do it again. I hereby apologise for snipping attributions. Although I certainly (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Try "either the CEO is personally liable for everything his subordinates do, or those people actually committing the mistakes are". (...) What if "some damages" comes out to more than they can pay? In the majhority of cases, this is in fact (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble. (...) If the CEO takes all the corporate assets when there is a fine outstanding against those assets, something criminal is happening that has _nothing_ to do with general (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) It's not a better system, so that's entirely irrelevant. (...) I was in fact suggesting that the situation does not currently exist to the extent that it would. (...) Yah. Right. Big companies will always spend a dollar to save a cent (and not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Because you're both right. The one does not exclude the other. (you a bit less than bruce, to be fair, but still..) Jasper (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Larry, attributions are never, _NEVER_ "some stuff". Snipping attributions is not a good debating tactic, it's not clever, and in fact, it makes you look like an ass, which I know you aren't. If some notices you snipped attributions, the (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
