It's More Profitable If It's a Flop
Leo Bloom: "Let's assume, just for the moment, that you are a dishonest man."
Max Bialystock: "Assume away."
-- Film: The Producers
Now I don't know what people are thinking when they write articles like this, but I have to say somebody is full of crap.
This article is ridiculous.
Point #1
Journalism with the purpose to destroy companies publically.
Alright so it's wrong to be criminal, agreed. How are they criminal? They are committing acts to decieve and so gain personal profit against the mores of the group. A few actions can be taken, one being corrected the individual or group committing the criminal acts. If they would not, when confronted with their wrong doings, change their ways and get honest and straight, then one could force their ethics in with justice.
While that's one way, we could go the other way. Someone is doing something wrong, make him so publically outcast and wrong for everything he does and crush him. If we're lucky the group will only collapse and ruin anyone attached to it, including those unrelated to the criminality. At very best their tune changes, they clean up and make up their damage. At very worst, they are so publically outcast we put them in to a criminal desperation. Get them in the mindset of, "What do I have to do to feed my family when everyone is against me?" They were already criminal, so going in to that next step of "everyone's against me" may not even be new, just exposed. So now you have a desperate raving criminal corporation, group or individual on your hands which, since you never tried to handle at all you probably aren't even looking at, is assumed to be changed because he was so publically blasted for it before, but it's likely he'll be changed only in being more covert about his illegal dealings.
So why do it? It could just be ignorance, but we've all been around a long time, and those up to that level of business are not ignorant.
The intentions could be any number of things, but that is clouded by the next point.
Point #2.
For anyone to write an article about this in such a la-la laxsidasical wishy-washy way points up to there being 10 times as many thing that shouldn't be in the immediate topic than shown in the article and probably 100-1000x in that area overall.
Tab this one and keep your eyes open.
Max Bialystock: "Assume away."
-- Film: The Producers
Now I don't know what people are thinking when they write articles like this, but I have to say somebody is full of crap.
This article is ridiculous.
Point #1
Journalism with the purpose to destroy companies publically.
Alright so it's wrong to be criminal, agreed. How are they criminal? They are committing acts to decieve and so gain personal profit against the mores of the group. A few actions can be taken, one being corrected the individual or group committing the criminal acts. If they would not, when confronted with their wrong doings, change their ways and get honest and straight, then one could force their ethics in with justice.
While that's one way, we could go the other way. Someone is doing something wrong, make him so publically outcast and wrong for everything he does and crush him. If we're lucky the group will only collapse and ruin anyone attached to it, including those unrelated to the criminality. At very best their tune changes, they clean up and make up their damage. At very worst, they are so publically outcast we put them in to a criminal desperation. Get them in the mindset of, "What do I have to do to feed my family when everyone is against me?" They were already criminal, so going in to that next step of "everyone's against me" may not even be new, just exposed. So now you have a desperate raving criminal corporation, group or individual on your hands which, since you never tried to handle at all you probably aren't even looking at, is assumed to be changed because he was so publically blasted for it before, but it's likely he'll be changed only in being more covert about his illegal dealings.
So why do it? It could just be ignorance, but we've all been around a long time, and those up to that level of business are not ignorant.
The intentions could be any number of things, but that is clouded by the next point.
Point #2.
For anyone to write an article about this in such a la-la laxsidasical wishy-washy way points up to there being 10 times as many thing that shouldn't be in the immediate topic than shown in the article and probably 100-1000x in that area overall.
Tab this one and keep your eyes open.
posted by Kombucha @ 8/24/2006 12:21:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home