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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6768)	4/19/2004 9:50:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I can spend all night coming up with reasons why you have the inability to understand my logic, criticizing your lack of comprehension, without bearing the responsibility of ever having to further explain myself, or provide an alternative scenario which you might be able to understand. How's that for an example of what I've been talking about?.. ;0) It doesn't strike me as a good example of anything... Explaining (or not explaining) your point isn't the same as coming up with an alternate solution to a problem (or not stating an alternate solution). To expand on my statement " I don't understand what you mean by that" (that being " The difference is that, by criticizing a plan based upon logic that is irrelevant, if not explicitly dysfunctional one is engaging in a monologue, not a dialogue.") Are you saying that my logic or my real criticism is irrelevant, or that the logic of the criticism of the hypothetical situation was irrelevant, or that the hypothetical situation itself was irrelevant (and if so irrelevant to what?)?) That's a critical monologue.. Criticism merely for the sake of criticism.. Criticism that declares that my logic (or comprehension) is always implicitly flawed, but neither bears the burden of properly explaining why, nor of proposing alternative logic (or means of comprehension). Your stating several different ideas and lumping them all together. I did not criticize for the sake of criticism, and I did not declare that your logic is always implicitly flawed. Also there is no necessary connections between such statements and posting or not posting an alternative solution. If I had posted an alternative solution I could still have made an ad-hominem attack like "your logic is always implicitly flawed". In reality I did neither. I did not post an alternate solution or make an ad-hominem attack and criticize merely for the sake for criticism. "Doing something" is not always better. But that is not the case in the scenario Nadine and I were discussing. The Israelis are always doing "something". The Palestinians are also doing "something". But both sides are also doing nothing, when it comes to reaching a multi-lateral peace accord. Do both sides want such an accord? For that matter looking at if from the outside is progress towards such an accord really our goal? I would like to see a more peaceful and stable situation but progress toward such an accord or even an actual accord might not really bring peace or stability to the region, and intervention of foreign forces also might fail to bring such stability in fact it might make things worse, esp. for the outsiders who intervene. If we are to take a proposal like yours seriously (and I did even though I disagreed with it), we have to analyze questions like "Will it really bring peace and stability to the region"? And such questions still need to be answered before going forward with an idea like what you posted even if no really good idea comes along to replace it. Tim

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6768)	4/20/2004 7:39:26 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis Shell admits deceiving shareholders; Sacked chairman savaged in report By Katherine Griffiths, Banking Correspondent 20 April 2004 news.independent.co.uk Shell was embroiled yesterday in Britain's biggest corporate scandal for almost 20 years after it admitted a three-year plan to deceive its shareholders. The City reacted with astonishment after the crisis-stricken multinational released details from an internal report that exposed how the company had deliberately overstated its oil and gas reserves for several years. Judy Boynton, the finance chief, became the third boardroom casualty of the furore that followed the shock 20 per cent downgrade in reserves three months ago. The Shell affair, the most damaging scandal in the UK since the Guinness debacle 18 years ago, has already led to the departure of the chairman, Sir Philip Watts, and the head of exploration and production, Walter van de Vijver. The pair were savaged in the damning, independent report commissioned by Shell for appearing to know that reserves failed to meet market rules as far back as 2001. The report listed a bewildering array of e-mails sent between increasingly desperate executives. In one, Mr van de Vijver told Sir Philip last November: "I am sick and tired about lying about the extent of our reserves issues and the downward revisions that need to be done because of far too aggressive/optimistic bookings.'' A month later, Mr van de Vijver, responding to an internal report that suggested Shell's position on the reserves was a violation of US securities law, wrote: "This is absolute dynamite, not at all what I expected and needs to be destroyed." The prospect of criminal charges being brought against some Shell executives appeared increasingly likely last night. The report was designed to get to the bottom of an affair that has rocked confidence in the stewardship of Shell since the disclosure that its reserves had been overstated. It says Mr van de Vijver repeatedly e-mailed Sir Philip over a period of nearly two years to inform him of concerns over the group's reserves. The report, carried out by the US law firm Davis, Polk & Wardwell, paints a picture of Sir Philip resisting attempts by Mr van de Vijver to scale back the amount of oil and gas the company was telling the outside world it was discovering. Sir Philip directed Mr van de Vijver to "leave no stone unturned" to hit targets. The company again cut its reserves estimates in March, and yesterday - saying it was drawing a line under the matter - made further reductions. The contents of the internal report will be a huge blow to Sir Philip, sacked by Shell along with Mr van de Vijver last month after the company's financial woes became public. It is unclear whether they will receive any financial settlements, but Sir Philip was paid £1.8m in 2002, and has a pension worth £480,000 a year. Mr van de Vijver is reputed to have earned a salary in excess of more than £1m, and a generous pension. Ms Boynton, the chief financial officer, was forced out after she failed to address the inaccurate nature of Shell's reserves reporting policy. A fourth person, joint chairman Lord Oxburgh, is expected to resign within the next few days. Sir Philip and other senior directors are thought to have been named in law suits initiated by shareholders in America. The company said yesterday it had been requested to publish only a summary of its report by the US regulatory authorities. Attempts to contact Sir Philip at his Berkshire home yesterday were unsuccessful. America's financial regulator - the Securities and Exchange Commission - and the Justice Department are investigating. The bar on Shell publishing the full result of its investigation sparked speculation the US authorities did not want to scupper a potential criminal prosecution of Sir Philip, and possibly others, by releasing information that could prejudice the case. Kenneth Vianale, a partner in Florida-based Vianale & Vianale, which has launched a shareholders' class action against Shell, said: "Shareholders would like to have full disclosure of the report. But if a company conducts an internal report which is then given to a third party, such as the SEC, lawyers' privilege is waived."