 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | <388E2A0B.67DF7930@voyager.net> <Fowz19.44A@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (...) Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it wouldn't be fair the law just decided (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | (...) No he didn't. Not while the laws are not in place yet, certainly. And what makes you think there will still be people willing to take that responsibility should you pass this? This way leads to either huge CEO salaries, to cope with insurance (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, I was talking about once we were at the fully implemented system. Transition is always a problem, but those problems are not enough of a reason to look at a better system and opt not to strive for it. If we adopted a gradual aproach to the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) The managers that I've known were typically not forced into management at gunpoint. Maybe things work differently in NL, but I wouldn't have guess in that way. (...) But that doesn't make the company feel fear or pain. It might - if the sums (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | Christopher Weeks wrote in message <38959983.1F02FD9F@e...se.net>... (...) janitor. Its not at all ludicrous. Every nuclear generator, even the portable ones, have a meltdown button. You know, just in case. (...) Sure does... if your a CEO you want (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ac87e0.517825005@...et.com>... (...) Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the judgement. This is why a PERSON MUST have ultimate responsibility. If they don't, the corporation can just (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I think you're doing fine. We seem to be getting forced into an invalid either-or trap. Your opposition is taking the "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or no one is" tack, it seems to me. And that's just not so. Companies (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | (...) :) This is another either-or trap. I don't believe that people are inherently good, neither do I believe that people are inherently bad. Rather, I believe that peoples actions and thoughts are moulded by the environmental and social structures (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) inherently (...) believe (...) social (...) One problem is that those who believe in the inherent goodness of people sometimes shortcut things. What we really believe is that everyone has the inherent (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Agreed! (...) Fence suggests a dichotomy, besides which, birthing atop a fence could be dangerous! I am curious as to why you think we are born 'good'. Not arguing, just curious - my reasoning would initially follow the evolutionary model, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) No, actually. Try "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or the company is." I have no problems with the concept of a group of people being responsible, as a group, for what they do. (...) And I would say that if you are dealing (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | James Brown wrote in message ... (...) corporate (...) Well, you may ultimately have to jail more that the CEO. I wish I could remember more. I seem to remember a recent case where a company officer was jailed because the company wouldn't do what (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) That sure isn't what I'm arguing. First off, the people making the mistakes are ALWAYS responsible. However, the CEO can be held responsible if there is some flaw in the way (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No you're not. There's just such a vast conceptual gulf between those that think that man is innately evil and those that think that he is innately good, that you may never be able to bridge it, distracting and disingenious accusations of (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Agreed, as someone who's often on the other side(1), you're both doing a good job (generally) of getting your points across. Where the communication breaks down is at base level assumptions, and the fact that the medium is slightly awkward for (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I also happen to disagree that Christian belief necessitates "man is innately evil." That's because my religion descends from a Christian belief that believes that man is innately good (though most people in my religion do not consider (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, I'd disagree there, as well. Well, ok, sort of. I would suggest that many mainstream Christians have this belief, but that it is a misinterpretation of what mainstream Christian churches(1) are teaching - namely that man is inherently (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) Oh yeah, that really worries me. (...) But its easy to get away with not doing it. (...) Move to China for ten years, and come back to this then. Better yet, just unlearn (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) 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?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | | I wonder if I stopped beating my head against the proverbial brick wall whether my ear problems would go away???? Oh, well, I'll keep beating, maybe I'll break through... Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@l...et.com>... (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) Then it's gone, also quite effectively reducing it to zero. My point is that it's not a good thing to punish mismanagement as if it's the same thing as whatever things the mismanaged underlings get up to. (...) If your manager is a floor or a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
