Home > Archive > Cobol > November 2007 > OT: No level is safe, zero tolerance
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: No level is safe, zero tolerance
|
|
| Robert 2007-11-11, 7:55 am |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:41:28 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>In article <00mcj3pm14eurkse27m0oln2ktom3lise8@4ax.com>,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>Whacky ASCII characters aside, Mr Wagner... I did not know that the text
>you were quoting - it contained a few first-person pronouns - was not your
>own until I followed the URL to its source. I noticed two things there.
>
>1) No links were provided to any sources for any of the numbers.
Newspapers and magazines don't use footnotes either, because scholarly writing sounds
pompous to the general public.
>2) The article is over seven years old. Things may - or may not - have
>changed since then.
Hypocrisy hasn't changed. Ben and Jerry are selling dilettantish environmentalism to
justify high prices. Milloy caught them in a lie. Tabloid readers love such stories.
| |
|
| In article <7epdj3p410d5lpbhest7p75sj40qovjs27@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:41:28 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>Newspapers and magazines don't use footnotes either, because scholarly
>writing sounds
>pompous to the general public.
Never mind the 'Brooklyn Bridge defense' ('*they* don't do it, either!')
here... Mr Wagner, newspapers and magazines don't have the built-in
capacity to provide hypertext links; to ignore that which was designed
into the World Wide Web by Mr Berners-Lee does not appear to indicate that
the intent behind the article is full, honest representation of all
evidence available.
>
>
>Hypocrisy hasn't changed. Ben and Jerry are selling dilettantish
>environmentalism to
>justify high prices. Milloy caught them in a lie. Tabloid readers love
>such stories.
That you assert it does not make it so, Mr Wagner... you are providing as
much documentation as was provided by the article you cited. The company
one chooses, and all that.
DD
| |
| donald tees 2007-11-11, 6:55 pm |
| Robert wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:41:28 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
> Newspapers and magazines don't use footnotes either, because scholarly writing sounds
> pompous to the general public.
Whereas the above sounds pompous to everyone ...
Donald
| |
| Robert 2007-11-11, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:34:23 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>In article <7epdj3p410d5lpbhest7p75sj40qovjs27@4ax.com>,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>Never mind the 'Brooklyn Bridge defense' ('*they* don't do it, either!')
>here... Mr Wagner, newspapers and magazines don't have the built-in
>capacity to provide hypertext links; to ignore that which was designed
>into the World Wide Web by Mr Berners-Lee does not appear to indicate that
>the intent behind the article is full, honest representation of all
>evidence available.
The article was written for and published on FoxNews.com, where stories contain almost no
links. Even stories referring to online scientific reports do not link to the subject
reports. For example,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301138,00.html
>
>That you assert it does not make it so, Mr Wagner... you are providing as
>much documentation as was provided by the article you cited. The company
>one chooses, and all that.
Ben and Jerry's (Unilever's) response does not dispute the measurement of dioxin in its
ice cream.
http://www.benjerry.com/our_company...ing-sales00.cfm
They don't mention that paper bleaching no longer produces dioxin, thus there is no
rationale for Ben and Jerry to continue using brown paper liners. It's just a Feel Good
gesture.
| |
|
| In article <6jeej3hvq78e8i7ag0j16oi4jhv975b9ov@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:34:23 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>The article was written for and published on FoxNews.com, where stories
>contain almost no
>links.
So it seems the entire website ignores that which was designed into the
World Wide Web by Mr Berners-Lee... see above about apparent indication of
intent.
Your first response, Mr Wagner, was 'nobody else does it'... and now it is
'these guys don't do it, also'. What is more important to you,
personally, in the matter of this particular article, the facts that are
currently available or the appearances which can be generated by citing a
seven-year-old article? What, would you say, is the statute of
limitations for an Act of Corporate Hypocrisy?
>Even stories referring to online scientific reports do not link
>to the subject
>reports. For example,
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301138,00.html
>
>
>Ben and Jerry's (Unilever's) response does not dispute the measurement
>of dioxin in its
>ice cream.
>
>http://www.benjerry.com/our_company...ing-sales00.cfm
This response, by its URL, is seven years old, as well. Things may - or
may not - have changed since then... and, as indicated above, the statute
of limitations may have expired.
DD
| |
| Robert 2007-11-12, 3:55 am |
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:01:12 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>In article <6jeej3hvq78e8i7ag0j16oi4jhv975b9ov@4ax.com>,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>So it seems the entire website ignores that which was designed into the
>World Wide Web by Mr Berners-Lee... see above about apparent indication of
>intent.
Suppose you are writing a story for Fox News. They give you a copy of the Editorial
Standards. You see the Standards were written over 20 years ago, for a different medium:
print. Do you:
a) Point out the Standards are obsolete in today's world and the old fart Managing Editor
who wrote them should have retired years ago.
b) Say nothing, write the article by their obsolete rules.
You've answered b) many times when faced with the same challenge in Cobol shops. There is
no reason to think you'd show more leadership in a journalistic setting.
>Your first response, Mr Wagner, was 'nobody else does it'... and now it is
>'these guys don't do it, also'.
I said the popular press doesn't cite sources; I didn't say nobody else.
> What is more important to you,
>personally, in the matter of this particular article, the facts that are
>currently available or the appearances which can be generated by citing a
>seven-year-old article? What, would you say, is the statute of
>limitations for an Act of Corporate Hypocrisy?
The message is more important to me than the technical details of presentation.
The statute of limitations hasn't run out because Ben and Jerry are still publishing
annual Social Audits, which they explicitly SAY are as important as financial audits.
I would applaud them IF their Social Audits were based on reality and pragmatism. Sadly,
the audits are a pollyannaish public relations ploy. Organizations that get it right, in
my humble opinion, are the Bill Gates Foundation and Arrowhead Mills.
>
>This response, by its URL, is seven years old, as well. Things may - or
>may not - have changed since then... and, as indicated above, the statute
>of limitations may have expired.
In their 2002 Social Audit, they revisited the 2000 attack we're discussing as a point of
comparison. The tone was that both were public relations embarassments. They discussed the
damage in terms of appearance rather than substance. If they had integrity, they would
have dealt with the issues raised instead of fretting about looking bad.
| |
|
| In article <i9jfj3dk33k9iets5d12vcm3mtblkkc9gv@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:01:12 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>Suppose you are writing a story for Fox News.
Suppose there were no hypothetical situations, Mr Wagner... let alone
other hypothetical invocations of the Brooklyn Bridge defense. I'm
willing to do that, for now.
[snip]
>
>I said the popular press doesn't cite sources; I didn't say nobody else.
So you admit, clearly and unambiguously, that you supplied a Brooklyn
Bridge defense... consider it discarded, then.
>
>
>The message is more important to me than the technical details of presentation.
'The message', Mr Wagner, might, possibly, be what a given person chooses
to hear.
>
>The statute of limitations hasn't run out because Ben and Jerry are
>still publishing
>annual Social Audits, which they explicitly SAY are as important as
>financial audits.
Leave it aside, for the moment, that I've never heard of a company being
fined for a bad Social Audit as they have for a bad financual one... you
admit, tacitly, that there is a statute of limitations because you say it
hasn't run out. Second time, then: what would you say it the statute of
limitations for an Act of Corporate Hypocrisy?
[snip]
>
>In their 2002 Social Audit, they revisited the 2000 attack we're
>discussing as a point of
>comparison. The tone was that both were public relations embarassments.
So, it seems, that things have changed so much that nobody, noplace else
has been able to duplicate the results of the 2000 study was sponsored by
Gough and Milroy.
Didn't you learn, Mr Wagner, that the hallmark of a 'science' is a set of
independently verifiable results?
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-11-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:46:23 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>Newspapers and magazines don't use footnotes either, because scholarly writing sounds
>pompous to the general public.
We can do better here. Hypertext is easy on-line.
>
>Hypocrisy hasn't changed.
Neither have false claims and rumors.
>Ben and Jerry are selling dilettantish environmentalism to justify high prices.
Apparently there's a market for this. Supply and demand works.
>Milloy caught them in a lie. Tabloid readers love such stories.
Tabloid readers don't demand veracity in such stories. We can do
better.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-11-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:46:23 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>Hypocrisy hasn't changed. Ben and Jerry are selling dilettantish environmentalism to
>justify high prices. Milloy caught them in a lie. Tabloid readers love such stories.
Is dioxin in food an environmentalism issue?
| |
| HeyBub 2007-11-12, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:46:23 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
> Is dioxin in food an environmentalism issue?
Are you kidding? FOOD is an envioronmental issue.
| |
| Robert 2007-11-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:19:35 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>So, it seems, that things have changed so much that nobody, noplace else
>has been able to duplicate the results of the 2000 study was sponsored by
>Gough and Milloy.
Here is technical detail from Gough and Milloy.
http://www.junkscience.com/dec99/benjerr2.html#N_12_
>Didn't you learn, Mr Wagner, that the hallmark of a 'science' is a set of
>independently verifiable results?
Another analysis with lower results, but still over the FDA limit.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?r...=10763&page=283
| |
|
| In article <m2qhj3h7flh7rso285np1l20ra68uo1o13@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:19:35 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>
>Here is technical detail from Gough and Milloy.
>
>http://www.junkscience.com/dec99/benjerr2.html#N_12_
Those are their figures, from the studies they paid for... where are the
duplicated results?
>
>
>Another analysis with lower results, but still over the FDA limit.
>
>http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?r...=10763&page=283
Not only are these figures not duplicates of the Gough and
Milloy-sponsored results, Mr Wagner... the brand in question is not
mentioned.
Third and final time, though... what would you say it the statute of
limitations for an Act of Corporate Hypocrisy?
DD
| |
| Robert 2007-11-12, 9:56 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:31:16 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>Third and final time, though... what would you say it the statute of
>limitations for an Act of Corporate Hypocrisy?
The question is unanswerable because there is no statute. People stop regarding a company
as hypocritical after they see its corporate culture has changed for the better. Corporate
cultures tend to persist through 100% turnover. They are like the axe that's been in
continuous use for 20 years, during which its head was replaced 5 times and its handle
replaced 3 times.
| |
|
| In article <5a5ij3djem7sn11m9lblk22n9b9tga83kg@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:31:16 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>The question is unanswerable because there is no statute.
I see... so while acts of fraud, theft, misrepresentation and the like -
things that are so bad wrong that they are forbidden by statute - are to
be forgotten, in terms of legal enforcement, after a few years, this sort
of bad behavior you're addressing is on a par with murder and other
felonies which are not covered by such a statute.
Interesting set of equivalations there, it seems.
>People stop
>regarding a company
>as hypocritical after they see its corporate culture has changed for the
>better.
I barely know what *I* do, Mr Wagner, let alone 'people'... and I did not
ask you about 'people', just about the responsibilities associated with
your own actions.
>Corporate
>cultures tend to persist through 100% turnover. They are like the axe
>that's been in
>continuous use for 20 years, during which its head was replaced 5 times
>and its handle
>replaced 3 times.
I'd always been taught that the attitude of 'This is my grandfather's axe;
my father replaced the haft and I replaced the head' was a demonstration
of a kind of absurdity.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:48:01 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Are you kidding? FOOD is an envioronmental issue.
Growing lots of food does effect the environment, I agree. But what
I put in my own body is only an environmental issue if *everything*
is. If a word means everything, then it means nothing.
| |
| Alistair 2007-11-13, 6:55 pm |
| On 11 Nov, 12:46, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:41:28 +0000 (UTC), docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Newspapers and magazines don't use footnotes either, because scholarly writing sounds
> pompous to the general public.
>
The Guardian (a UK paper) does provide links, quite often to the
tinyurl site, and cites sources. It also provides sidebars. Sidebars
and links are also a feature of Scientific American.
|
|
|
|
|