| straydog 2005-04-25, 8:55 pm |
|
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, alexy wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:15:25 -0400
> From: alexy <nospam@asbry.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: (more trolling for alexy) Are all CEOs just crooks?
>
> straydog <advocacy@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>
> Well, that was a quick change of position! So do you no longer make
> the silly claim that they are all just a bunch of crooks? (Easily
> refuted by showing one non-crook;
Well, one non-crook in a large universe of crooks .... what big effect
does that have? One rotten apple in a barrel of good apples is nothing to
write home about, but if I find half the apples rotten, then I gonna throw
out the barrel because it ain't worth the trouble looking at the rest.
I'll nominate my barber, who seems
> to deal honestly and fairly with both customers and other barbers who
> rent chairs in his shop.)
No cigars there....the bad CEOs have a lot of physical, legal, and
bureaucratic insulation between guys like me and them.
This new claim, that there is more evidence
> (e.g., from none to slight, or from substantial to overwhelming) that
> a greater proportion (e.g., from 1% to 2%, 5% to 7%, or 75% to 90%) of
> corporate mindsets can be characterized (whether accurately or not) as
> "a bunch of crooks" is much easier to accept. In fact, it is so devoid
> of informational content that I am willing to accept it as (trivially)
> true.
Its all part of the tip of the iceberg. Considering the large number of
executives (and all their hangers-on) in the biggest corporations (and
Scrushy, and a bunch others), lets speculate the ratio of visible tip of
shit to the invisible submerged tip..... do you think the only crooks out
there are the ones that are discovered?
>
> Especially after witnessing the waffling above.
Oh, I'll still say they're "all" a bunch of crooks.
> Then your imagination is defective. I have no basis for KNOWING that
> your speculation is correct, but I suspect that it is, and think it
> would be a useful working hypothesis until tested.
Aw shucks (if Ebbers can say it, so can I)...I'll bet money on it.
> I don't have any good basis for accepting or rejecting that
> hypothesis
Two studies, one recent, one 5-10 years ago showed statistically
significantly less giving to charity by the rich and s-s more giving by
the poor (compared to 20 years ago). I'm sorry I didn't save the
references...but I'm sure you'll just dismiss them.
.. And as you look at the "evidence" you have gathered, try
> to think back to when you were a scientist, and see if you can figure
> the possible flaws in the process of determining the incidence of a
> trait in a [non random] sample of subpopulation A, and from that
> concluding that the incidence of that trait in all of subpopulation A
> is higher than the unknown incidence of that trait in the population
> as a whole.
1. If half the apples in the barrell are bad, I'm rejecting the barrell.
2. You still have not presented any CEO meritable traits worth my
charitable judgement of CEOs..
> Yes, I think they would agree with you in that regard.
See... greed and selfishness are simply symptoms of the pathology.
> Really? Maybe you can tell me whether that dry cleaner in Topeka had
> to pay out to the customer who claimed he had stolen antique buttons
> from his blazer. Or maybe you didn't mean to state the trivially false
> statement that you had been following all events in the last 5 years,
> and instead meant the trivially true statement that you had been
> following all the events you chose to follow.
Which dry cleaner?
I don't read everything. Do you? I don't remember everything. Do you?
I was wrong about Stonecipher not being a CEO but he did do a bad thing
and did it behind everyones back.
> What are your criteria for a "strong" article?
1. In reputable media.
2. Cites references & studies.
3. Authored by reputable people.
Wouldn't have anything
> to do with whether you agreed with it or not, would it? <g>
I'm still waiting for you to tell us what magnanimous, great, angelic, and
superior people CEOs are, and while you're at it, explain why, and give us
some sources.
> Might want to change your focus here to well written books. Much
> easier to evaluate from the book itself, and doesn't require
> interviewing or testing the readers to see how well the book has been
> read.
Um...care to give me YOUR notion of a well written book?
> Surprise, surprise!
Really?
>
>
> And what was that? <g>
Your sentence beginning with "I find...."
And, for the record, I don't subscribe to creationism, either.
> But you are wrong. Evaluation of an argument is critical to avoid
> acceptance of a position an the basis of a losing argument.
Most of what you have written so far has been an attack on my argument
rather than a solid refutation based on empirically demonstrable facts.
|