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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (144816)	8/5/2002 9:12:20 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Hey!

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (144816)	8/6/2002 3:46:54 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Let me get this straight: If you take one hundred people and offer them a job where they can make hundreds of millions of dollars in a year, and if you tell them that it is either legal or almost legal, and if you tell them that it is for the good of the firm, and if you tell them that the chances of getting caught are very low indeed, and if you tell them that deniability almost always gets you off the hook if you do get accused, you are telling me that only 2% or 3% of the population is going to agree to hide a few figures or fail to report something that does not need to be reported to comply with the law or at least could be argued in a court of law without a clear result -- although not reporting the numbers presents an obvious gross distortion of the financial picture of the firm? Try another number.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (144816)	8/6/2002 11:26:31 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

"3%, with a margin of error of 2%?" I figured that was close enough for Government work<VBG> "perception of whether another person is harmed as opposed to a corporation or government entity" It really should not matter who or what is harmed. That being said, my customer think of us as a major corporation and are clueless the loss comes directly out of my pocket. I am not certain they would care either way in that they think of me as a major corporation. It still really should not matter. "For example, would you return to McDonald's to return the dollar of extra change the cashier gave you if you were miles away before you noticed? Just leaving the lot? How would you behavior change if the cashier was rude? What if the amount of money involved was much greater?" I believe the amount of money involved would affect me. The dollar is not worth the trouble. In fact the cost to correct the issue, likely could exceed the dollar. Here is one for you which surprised the heck out of me. Two years ago I was in Vegas with my son on business. We did have time for some non business "entertainment." We were playing blackjack and the dealer thought there was a push between the dealer and my son when in fact my son lost. As the dealer was going to deal another hand, my son spoke up and asked him/her to take his chip. We apparently have high ethics in the way we raised my son or did his speaking up have something to do with the buyer of the chips was myself and the loss was mine?