PDA

View Full Version : Re: Drug testing? .......Re: DJ closes at 6763 today?


BobR
March 16th 09, 02:27 AM
On Mar 15, 4:17*pm, Stray Dog > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, BobR wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: BobR >
> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, alt.politics.economics, sci.econ,
> > * * misc.invest.stocks
> > Subject: Re: Drug testing? .......Re: DJ closes at 6763 today?
>
> >>>> crooks based on the assumption that they are crooks until proven innocent
> >>>> (by reputation, by 3rd party recommendations, or other evidence to be
> >>>> presented).
>
> >>> That is a fundamental difference between us that I can't understand.
> >>> To assume that people are crooks until proven innocent is just plain
> >>> wrong.
>
> >> 1. I've been ripped off too many times.
> >> 2. There is an old Irish saying: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool my
> >> twice, shame on me." I check everything out very thoroughly and I know a
> >> lot of people who approach unknowns for the first time with suspicion.
>
> >> After all, you ain't gonna get a loan from a bank without them checking
> >> you out, first.
>
> > Taking precautions is one thing but making assumptions is another. *I
> > am cautious in who I deal with but I don't make assumptions in
> > advance.
>
> When you go to the bank, they are going to smile at you and want to see
> ID, signatures, and lots of them will even do a credit check on you
> depending on what you set up with them. As I found out after asking THEM
> my standard list of 21 questions, if they don't like the credit check,
> they close your account.
>
> * *The one thing I have always done though, if it doesn't look
>
> > right I will walk away.
>
> Which just means to me that you are trusting your gut instincts, which to
> me is exactly my philosophy.
>
> * * I have turned down some clients over the
>
> > years because they didn't seem to be as above board as I required.
>
> As, crooks like to find people that "do seem" to be the kind they would
> like to prey upon.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> agreed upon, under fair and un-coerced conditions, by negotiated contract.
>
> >>> I spent well over 30 years in business for myself and during that
> >>> time,
>
> >> I've had all kinds of jobs, including president of my own small
> >> corporation for 12 years, for over 45 years of my life.
>
> >>> I worked with a lot of other business owners and corporations.
>
> >> So have I, including two years in the US Army, and with high level
> >> security clearances.
>
> > And I had four years in Air Force with TS Codeword clearance but that
> > was then and this is now.
>
> And, one of my clearances was compartmentalized. For nuclear weapons.
>
> >>> agreements.
>
> >> Yeah, sure.
>
> > If someone is going to try and screw you a written contract isn't
> > going to change that and it more than likely will spell out the means
> > by which they will screw you instead.
>
> You need to be aware of the tricky clauses, maybe have your own lawyer
> re-negotiate, or you walk away.
>
> >>>>> corporations.
>
> >>>> I can cite very good historical sources that, in reality, the
> >>>> "screw-the-underlings" was really the predominant business mode and even
> >>>> going back hundreds to many hundreds of years.
>
> >>> Yes, I know you can, that is all that you seem to do.
>
> >> And, I can tell that all of this is something you do NOT want to hear.
>
> > More like something that I don't need to hear, its not like its
> > anything new.
>
> Fine, you do things your way, and I'll do things my way.
>
> >>> I think what you needed to do was own your own business and spend some
> >>> time on the other side for a while.
>
> >> I've alredy told you that I was incorporated for 12 years, many times.
> >> Another example where you filter out anything inconsistent with your
> >> "religion".
>
> > Yes, you told me just above here. *I think the primary difference here
> > is that you can't seem to let it go. *Yes, I have been screwed over a
> > couple of times and have delt with companies that were less than
> > honest but I have let it go and don't dwell on it.
>
> I remember. If you want to forget, that's your perogative.
>

Not dwelling on something is not the same as forgetting. You remember
and learn from those mistakes but you never let them determine who you
are.

One of the most satisfying actions I ever took toward someone who had
cheated me out of two months pay and caused me to loose my health
insurance coverage was to totally forgive him the debt he ownd me and
forgive him for his actions in a public forumn. My lawyer was there
at the time and agreed to give him a written release. I let go of it
and walked away without any regrets and felt great about it and have
never regretted it.

> >>> company but were unable to find other jobs because of the stain of
> >>> their association with Enron. *By the way, why is it that everybody
> >>> make a big issue out of Enron but totally forgets a much larger
> >>> failure due to a crooked CEO, WorldCom?
>
> >> Oh, would you like me to list the over 100 executives now in jail over
> >> accounting and other fraud?
>
> > If it would give you satisfaction, be my guest but what purpose would
> > it serve?
>
> To show you there is a lot more than just one bad apple in a barrel of
> apples.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Please, you need to read this:
>
> >>> Yes, I have read that before and it is not new news. *Where white
> >>> colar crime is found, I firmly believe it should be prosecuted to the
> >>> fullest extent of the law. *Don't assume that support for free
> >>> enterprise means an open unqualified support for white colar crime.
> >>> That is not the case.
>
> >> Oh, I see that it was so unpleasant for you that you had to delete it in
> >> your response. I know another guy who does this, too.
>
> >> And, it also shows that you think the part of the iceberg that is above
> >> the water is all the iceberg there is.-
>
> > I didn't delete it for any such reason, I deleted it because it served
> > no purpose to repeat it again in my response. *Now you are starting to
> > sound like that other guy.
>
> Fine, you don't have to respond, either, and no one is forcing you to read
> me, and unlike the other guy, I'm not calling you names or saying you are
> stupid, or a liar, or more fool you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -