Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (178286)	9/6/2001 7:00:12 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"This is my attempt to get you to think about why you don't trust the decisions that other may make" When making money and providing the best services possible to customers are both involved you would be wise (imo) to be skeptical. I pointed out the example of oil companies charging more at the source of their refineries than they do when the have to ship it a couple hundred miles (but still in CA). And how about banks that charge 19% on their credit cards and offer their "customers" 1% or less. Or how about airlines that charge $2,000 to go to Chicago, but $700 to go to Milwaukee even though you are on the same flight to Chicago, and then use MORE of the companies resources to board another flight. They are examples of games that corps play to maximize profits (or try to) at the expense of the customer (as opposed to the benefit of the customer). They are legal means, but not on the up and up in my opinion. It does not bother me that you completely trust these companies, but for some reason you are bothered that I do not. Weird. That said, I think we should have banks, oil companies and airlines, but I do not trust them completely (even if the good outweighs the bad). If you want to completely trust them that is fine, but it is a bit offensive if you insult me for not trusting them completely. "you say I read way to much in. I just explored possibilities of the meaning of a simple non definitive agreement with a stupid emotions based opinion post" I think you went on to attack me because it bothered you that I agreed with parts of third's post. I was curious what side he (flap, actually) would take becuase two dem ideals were crashing into each other. I was actaully glad he did support the drilling at Anwar. That is the reason I asked. "I like that word ridiculisms though" Thanks.