Re: Your english sucks, mine is better.

[michaelb@frontiernet.net (michael)]

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:54:41 -0700, "Larry Elmore"
<ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:

>billg@jk.pst.com wrote in message ...
>>In article <65bo2c$d9l$1@news.nyu.edu>, kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu says...
>>> In article <MPG.ee29e258b7bed66989783@news.idt.net> billg@jk.pst.com
>writes:
>>> >Well then you don't fall into the category of capitalist either because
>>> >being dishonest and unethical is at the core of capitalistic "success".
>>> >But then you were referring to _other_ people weren't you.  Your
>>> >marketing people (and managers) will inherently be dishonest and
>>> >unethical by definition of the way things really work.
>>>
>>> I would not hire marketting people or manager who were dishonest
>>> either.  I don't challenge your claim that some companies do, but I
>>> would not.  I find your attitude that it's not possible to do business
>>> without being dishonest and unethical very disturbing.  I've certainly
>never
>>> been involved in such companies and never will knowingly be.
>>>
>>I've never worked for a company that was otherwise!  It's just human
>>nature I guess.  Someone in the fold will always be playing politics
>>trying to get the better of someone.  No matter how slight the instance,
>>it is ALWAYS there somewhere (the repository for the ill behaviour seems
>>to be middle management who may indeed be chartered with the task of
>>oppressing of personnel).  Usually where there is conflict, there is
>>reason for it.  Companies go to great lengths to look like they on the
>>right side even if they are not.  I'm not just referring to interactions
>>with customers, as it is more predominant in the company's dealings with
>>its employees that put them in the realm of the dishonest and unethical.
>
>
>There's definitely something to this, however, I fail to see a causal
>relationship with capitalism. This is merely describing very common human
>behavior at any point and place in time one chooses to look at. Competition
>is a basic fact of life -- for _all_ life, from viruses on up. I recently
>saw a good show on the social life and dynamics of a pack of wolves, and
>there's several on chimps. I didn't see anything much different there, and
>you can't blame capitalism for chimpanzee deceit and jockeying for power and
>position... Such behavior existed among humans since our earliest ancestors
>(that could be called human), long before capitalism was around, and if
>capitalism dies out (and it's certainly under heavy assault), those
>behaviors will still be here.
>
>These are behaviors that may work in the short run quite well, but not in
>the long run. Impeccable honor and integrity are not absolutely required,
>but a relatively high degree of it certainly is if one intends to run a
>legitimate, long-term business.
>
>
>There's a lot of stupid people out there, too, that can't see past the
>short-term gain. In the long-run, they're hurting themselves and their
>company. I've been at companies where they screwed the employees over, and
>any of us that were any good would leave as soon as we found out what the
>score was, and found another place to go to.
>That's the really good thing about capitalism -- the companies either
>changed their ways or went out of business (or are limping along on the
>verge of going out of business) because their products are shoddy, and their
>productivity low because most of their workforce is crap. Government
>operations can go on for decades just like that, though, and the more
>inefficient they get, the larger they get to try to compensate. Just look at
>the state-run operations in just about any communist/socialist country of
>today or the recent past...
>
>Larry
>
>>As for sales people: that false bonding they do to get business is
>>dishonest at best.  It's plastic people interacting and that leads to
>>major conflicts in society as a whole.  The way to prevent the large
>>social problems from happening is to prevent the small ones from
>>occuring.  Unfortunately, the "problem" is actually a vehicle and an
>>asset to many.
>>
>>billg
>


Reality Check!
What does this have to do with Pascal?

Sheesh, i get a sound 'verbal' thrashing for asking a question
that someone else has already asked, yet you guys babble on and on
and on and on about this stupid thread and the good "Dr. S." says
nothing?  No comment from Timo?