| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Richard Franks wrote:
>
> > A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself.
>
> It sort-of is.
In some very defined circumstances, it is suspicious - "The company accounts
are missing" etc. But that wouldn't be evidence that the company had been up to
fraudulent behaviour.
This "evidence" is of the sort: "Mummy hasn't told me not to stick bananas in
the VCR, she probably doesn't really mind."
> > One piece of evidence that we do have is that they would sack an employee
> > for doing what we have done. Doesn't that suggest that "it does matter" to
> > you?
>
> We have no such evidence.
Apart from the statements of TLC employees.
> > Why should TLC dignify this with a response? Obviously they don't wish
> > retailer catalogues to be shown to customers, we know that. What is there to
> > discuss??
>
> It's not obvious to me.
Apart from the fact that they make retailers sign agreements that they won't
show them to anyone else?
> > What do you expect TLC to say on the matter. "Go ahead, we never really
> > cared anyway, we just went to all the trouble of making these secret and
> > sacking employees who make them publically available for the fun of it."?
>
> here you seem to be asserting that TLG has actually fired employees for
> this. Who? When? What are you talking about?
Oops, my mistake! For "sacking", read "being prepared to sack", as far as I
know this hasn't happened.
> I agree with Mike three notes down.
Dunno which post you are reffering to so I can't comment.
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
116 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
