antibash, re:
<<So Larry, you're saying these corporations should just have to deal with the likes of Janice, Jeff and Bill with their childish pranks. And not worry if this type of prank could indeed disrupt valuable business plans. Hell Larry, why have any laws at all. Shit, we'll all think like you and say kill the guy with real ideas. You're a friggin moron, as Janice would say. Look dipshit, these three stooges decided amongst themselves to pull a disrespectful prank, without the realization of possible repercussions.>>
I must say you are a little too intense for me. If you aren't a lawyer, you should be. You fit right into the new lawyerly corporate Zeitgeist...as opposed, for instance, to the old days when a lawyer would tell a client (individual or corporate), on some issues, that they could sue but it would be wrong and they shouldn't. Now lawyers take marching orders with no questions asked and no reflection on a possible conflict between the nature of their work and their own personal and family values.
I don't understand why you are so worked up about my post. I really do not think Janice, Jeff, and Bill are capable of bringing down even a cottage industry, nevermind something like a Savings and Loan sector. At the same time great American Corporations like GE are in the newspapers at least once a week for bribing or trying to bribe representatives of foreign governments to get contracts (I am not complaining, I understand that sometimes such practices are necessary in business) and, equally frequently, for squeezing whistles blowers within their organizations who are following official company procedures in reporting things like quality control failures.
By the way, has BW ever gone after a corporation for filing a false or misleading news release? My guess is these holier than thou suits are reserved for use against individuals, wherein the Corporate team, and folks like you, can enjoy trying to tighten the screws on individuals who have highly limited resources, generally, in comparison to the SLAPPing Corporations.
The lather you work up reminds of a story about Winston Churchill who, on one occasion, was attacked by an opponent in Parliament who foamed into such a stammering gibberish that Churchill replied "My esteemed opponent should not generate more anger than he can contain." I have the sense that, if I could hear you, a similar reply would be appropriate.
You do have a knack for seeming to parade as virtues your most ugly characteristics. And why towards me? I am totally innocent. For one thing, I can say.....and listen carefully because I will only say it once....I did not have sexual relations with that...that woman Ms. Shell (nor with any of the WebNode3, for that matter, although I must admit I do find myself fantasizing about WebNodes quite a bit these days).
I do find merit, though, in your interesting suggestion "Hell Larry, why have any laws at all." You are fully correct here, some of the functions of law, especially the nature of what and who that law protects, are well worth serious thought. This is not to say, however, that I am in favor of anarchy, rather that I see your point that there may be some compromising biases in the current status and function of the extant law of our land. I am glad you have pointed us toward this possibility.
|
