Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #57283 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-01 09:15 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-03-03 16:21 +1300 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 86 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 09:15 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-01 11:56 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-01 17:10 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 10:27 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-01 19:23 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 01:47 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-01 21:41 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 03:07 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 01:50 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 08:08 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:21 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:36 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:48 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:09 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:14 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:09 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social responsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:17 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-02 17:06 +1300
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:25 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:32 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:47 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:10 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 13:12 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 13:18 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:54 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 13:57 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:21 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 17:25 -0800
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:47 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:56 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 01:17 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 21:30 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:07 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:48 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-02 18:19 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:25 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-03-07 20:38 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 21:37 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 10:13 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:23 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:02 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:30 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 12:46 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:09 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 14:03 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:45 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:15 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 01:18 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 19:57 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-03 07:51 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 15:05 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 21:44 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:55 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 13:56 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 15:49 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:44 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 10:29 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 05:19 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-01 21:37 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-03-01 23:55 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:24 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-01 21:37 -0800
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-03-02 10:28 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 11:04 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:25 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 18:02 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 11:10 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 11:26 -0800
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 22:19 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 17:57 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 17:04 -0800
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-03-07 20:25 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-07 18:52 -0700
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-08 06:50 +0000
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-08 09:23 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 11:20 -0800
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:19 -0500
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 10:14 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 09:00 +1300
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-02 14:25 -0600
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 13:40 +1300
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 13:04 -0800
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 13:44 +1300
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-02 17:02 -0800
Re: Tim Cook chooses social resonsibility Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-03 16:21 +1300
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 14:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CF38EFC3.A8506%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #57413 |
On 3/2/14 2:00 PM, in article 030320140900054358%YourName@YourISP.com, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article > <chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>, >> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >> >>> This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make a >>> profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very much >>> upset. >> >> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of the >> owners (the shareholders) want it run. >> >> That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders, >> receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. > > Nope. The obligation of GOOD managers (of which there are extremely > few) is to run the business SUCCESSFULY, not bow down to every whim and > idiocy of the greedy shareholders. You mean like Carl Icahn was trying to bully AAPL for his own greed?!? Perhaps Mr. Cook told him the same thing he told the others - to get the f--k out of Dodge. If so, good for him!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 13:40 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <030320141340093760%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #57415 |
In article <CF38EFC3.A8506%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 3/2/14 2:00 PM, in article 030320140900054358%YourName@YourISP.com, "Your > Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article > > <chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>, > >> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > >> > >>> This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make a > >>> profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very much > >>> upset. > >> > >> The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of > >> the > >> owners (the shareholders) want it run. > >> > >> That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders, > >> receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. > > > > Nope. The obligation of GOOD managers (of which there are extremely > > few) is to run the business SUCCESSFULY, not bow down to every whim and > > idiocy of the greedy shareholders. > > You mean like Carl Icahn was trying to bully AAPL for his own greed?!? Since he's apparently buying up more and more Apple stock, I can only guess the answer ot that is "Yes". > Perhaps Mr. Cook told him the same thing he told the others - to get the > f--k out of Dodge. If so, good for him! Yep.Icahn is an idiot who should change his name to Icahn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 13:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-52F328.13045602032014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #57413 |
In article <030320140900054358%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article > <chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>, > > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > > > > This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make a > > > profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very much > > > upset. > > > > The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of > > the > > owners (the shareholders) want it run. > > > > That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders, > > receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. > > Nope. The obligation of GOOD managers (of which there are extremely > few) is to run the business SUCCESSFULY, not bow down to every whim and > idiocy of the greedy shareholders. An employee is supposed to disobey the direction of the owners=employers? -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 13:44 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <030320141344239000%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #57419 |
In article <chine.bleu-52F328.13045602032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <030320140900054358%YourName@YourISP.com>, > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > In article > > <chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>, > > > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > > > > > > This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make a > > > > profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very much > > > > upset. > > > > > > The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority of > > > the > > > owners (the shareholders) want it run. > > > > > > That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders, > > > receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. > > > > Nope. The obligation of GOOD managers (of which there are extremely > > few) is to run the business SUCCESSFULY, not bow down to every whim and > > idiocy of the greedy shareholders. > > An employee is supposed to disobey the direction of the owners=employers? In extremely few cases are the shareholders actually the owners or the employers. Tim Cook's employers are almost certainly the Board, who themselves are a bunch of fools who should interfere as little as possible ... advise and suggest, yes, interfere, no, unless it's extremely obvious Cook and the other managers are about to bankrupt the company. You have to remember that it was the Board who threw out Steve Jobs in the first place and the idiot they kept almost did ruin the company.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 17:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-F39F5A.17024702032014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #57444 |
In article <030320141344239000%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article > <chine.bleu-52F328.13045602032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In article <030320140900054358%YourName@YourISP.com>, > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > > > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>, > > > > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to make > > > > > a > > > > > profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very > > > > > much > > > > > upset. > > > > > > > > The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority > > > > of > > > > the > > > > owners (the shareholders) want it run. > > > > > > > > That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders, > > > > receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. > > > > > > Nope. The obligation of GOOD managers (of which there are extremely > > > few) is to run the business SUCCESSFULY, not bow down to every whim and > > > idiocy of the greedy shareholders. > > > > An employee is supposed to disobey the direction of the owners=employers? > > In extremely few cases are the shareholders actually the owners or the They are the owners collectively. That's what shareholder means. If you mean only rarely does one person own the majority of stock, yes, but I'm always referring to the collective will of the shareholders. > employers. Tim Cook's employers are almost certainly the Board, who The board members are elected by the shareholders. They can vote out a board. > themselves are a bunch of fools who should interfere as little as > possible ... advise and suggest, yes, interfere, no, unless it's The board of directors are the representative of the owners of the company. The CEO is hired by the board and works for the shareholders. It's not the CEO's company, and they have to obey the will of the owners or expect to be fired. Whether the owners are feckless and mute is their choice. > extremely obvious Cook and the other managers are about to bankrupt the > company. You have to remember that it was the Board who threw out Steve > Jobs in the first place and the idiot they kept almost did ruin the > company. The owners of a business do not have to answer to you or me or employees of the business. The article reported that the shareholders voted not to change the Apple's practices. Individual shareholders can argue and attempt to persuade others, but since Cook still has the confidence of the majority of shareholders, he can ignore the wishes of one or two. -- :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 16:21 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <030320141621451211%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #57453 |
In article <chine.bleu-F39F5A.17024702032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <030320141344239000%YourName@YourISP.com>, > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article > > <chine.bleu-52F328.13045602032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > In article <030320140900054358%YourName@YourISP.com>, > > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <chine.bleu-F85F7F.21375501032014@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri > > > > Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <010320140915170326%michelle@michelle.org>, > > > > > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This should get the "The only obligation of a corporation is to > > > > > > make > > > > > > a > > > > > > profit for its investors; there is no other obligation" crowd very > > > > > > much > > > > > > upset. > > > > > > > > > > The obligation of the managers is to run the business as the majority > > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > owners (the shareholders) want it run. > > > > > > > > > > That shareholder proposal was rejected by Apple's shareholders, > > > > > receiving just 2.95 percent of the vote. > > > > > > > > Nope. The obligation of GOOD managers (of which there are extremely > > > > few) is to run the business SUCCESSFULY, not bow down to every whim and > > > > idiocy of the greedy shareholders. > > > > > > An employee is supposed to disobey the direction of the owners=employers? > > > > In extremely few cases are the shareholders actually the owners or the > > They are the owners collectively. That's what shareholder means. If you mean > only rarely does one person own the majority of stock, yes, but I'm always > referring to the collective will of the shareholders. > > > employers. Tim Cook's employers are almost certainly the Board, who > > The board members are elected by the shareholders. They can vote out a board. > > > themselves are a bunch of fools who should interfere as little as > > possible ... advise and suggest, yes, interfere, no, unless it's > > The board of directors are the representative of the owners of the company. > The > CEO is hired by the board and works for the shareholders. It's not the CEO's > company, and they have to obey the will of the owners or expect to be fired. > Whether the owners are feckless and mute is their choice. > > > extremely obvious Cook and the other managers are about to bankrupt the > > company. You have to remember that it was the Board who threw out Steve > > Jobs in the first place and the idiot they kept almost did ruin the > > company. > > The owners of a business do not have to answer to you or me or employees of > the > business. The article reported that the shareholders voted not to change the > Apple's practices. Individual shareholders can argue and attempt to persuade > others, but since Cook still has the confidence of the majority of shareholders, > he can ignore the wishes of one or two. That may or may not be how it's *meant* to work, but luckily it's not how it actually works. For a start, most of the shareholders wouldn't have a clue who is on the board. Most of them are there to make a quick buck, and then get out before the share price falls.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web