If you were a Canadian citizen, you would not be able to find a congressperson because there is no such beast up there in Canada. This just makes the rest of your tirade rather silly. Criminal conduct? What's criminal is your lack of basic knowledge of the world.
I am not in the USA. I used congressperson because it relates to most people reading the forum.
I'll let your ad hominem slide. Nice try assuming what I don't or do know about the world.
It is criminal conduct in my view, and Canadians will eventually have to foot the bill, if they haven't already, for these kinds of shenanigans.
Your call, Canadians. I suggest you press for this fiasco to be sorted out ASAP.
Maybe Canadians have more pressing matters, I of course won't sink to insulting Canadians, which is not my point anyway.
The case is clear. You have two Co-Chairmen, Co-CEOs that have presided over a failing company for four years. Now they are still on the Board, and one is "Chariman of Innovation". Next, you have a banker that has been sitting on the same Board for four years while everything went South and she's now independent Chair. You have a guy very closely related to their actual failing products, and he's now the CEO. This CEO is also "staying the course" ~ which obviously raises the point, why would he have been chosen if he's just going to "stay the course"? A puppet, perhaps?
What's wrong with this picture? I'll leave it to you all.
and WHY should I do your research for YOU??? As I said go DO your own research...there are lots of information about it, just ask Kevin O' Leary about it!
Ok, I called Kevin. He said you were full of crap too.
I am not in the USA. I used congressperson because it relates to most people reading the forum.
I get it. Neat trick! Next time I write something wrong, I will simply chalk to down *slumming* too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
It is criminal conduct in my view, and Canadians will eventually have to foot the bill, if they haven't already, for these kinds of shenanigans.
Whether it's criminal conduct is not up to anyone's view. It's up to the court system to decide, if the police or FBI (in case there's no FBI in Canada, I am just making it easy for others to relate ) see fit to investigate and proceed with charges. We are so far from that and you are already talking about Canadians to foot the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Your call, Canadians. I suggest you press for this fiasco to be sorted out ASAP.
How? How can Canadian citizens press for anything? Are the Finns pressing for Nokia to face criminal charges? Are Americans pressing for HP, Dell and Palm to face criminal charges?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Maybe Canadians have more pressing matters, I of course won't sink to insulting Canadians, which is not my point anyway.
Now you make sense. I am sure Canadians have more pressing matters than to interfere with the running of a company, even if the company had bungled its decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
The case is clear. You have two Co-Chairmen, Co-CEOs that have presided over a failing company for four years. Now they are still on the Board, and one is "Chariman of Innovation". Next, you have a banker that has been sitting on the same Board for four years while everything went South and she's now independent Chair. You have a guy very closely related to their actual failing products, and he's now the CEO. This CEO is also "staying the course" ~ which obviously raises the point, why would he have been chosen if he's just going to "stay the course"? A puppet, perhaps?
What's wrong with this picture? I'll leave it to you all.
I agree wholeheartedly that these changes are not changes at all. Personally, I am quite disappointed. But criminal charges? Watching too much Law & Order?
What's the saying: "Cussing is a FEEBLE-mind's futile attempt to sound strong on a losing argument"...har, har, har!
PS
Just ask HOW Kevin SOLD his "The Learning Company" for millions of dollars...hehehe!!!
That's the thing. You have no argument to win or lose against. You have only statements and assertions that you don't know how to back up. You are being dishonest. Own it.
*and for factual honesty, he sold it for billions.
That's the thing. You have no argument to win or lose against. You have only statements and assertions that you don't know how to back up. You are being dishonest. Own it.
*and for factual honesty, he sold it for billions.
I DO, and even GAVE you an example...go ASK Kevin, he knows a lot about Canadian start-ups (RIM and NORTEL unfortunately didn't get SOLD, because they are LOSERS) whose sole purpose is to SELL the businesses LATER for PROFIT!
I DO, and even GAVE you an example...go ASK Kevin, he knows a lot about Canadian start-ups (RIM and NORTEL unfortunately didn't get SOLD, because they are LOSERS) whose sole purpose is to SELL the businesses LATER for PROFIT!
BTW, Steve Jobs hated those type of start-ups!
I didn't ask for examples. Examples don't make facts. You said "Canadians are known to start a business, hoping it gets sold LATER...and RIM/Nortel are prime examples! That IS the reason why they had NO future plans to make the business stay long!"
Back it up. The facts might suggest that Canadians are less likely to do so. The fact might say you are right and they are more likely. But without those facts, you are talking out of your ass. Specifically to the former RIM leaders, Lazaridis and Balsillie were known for want to build legacies, with RIM and with their other projects. That speaks volumes against your silly suggestion that they started it in order to sell it. If that was the case, they would have sold it when they were on top.
I see now that you are just trolling with a new alt. Have fun with that.
I didn't ask for examples. Examples don't make facts. You said "Canadians are known to start a business, hoping it gets sold LATER...and RIM/Nortel are prime examples! That IS the reason why they had NO future plans to make the business stay long!"
Back it up. The facts might suggest that Canadians are less likely to do so. The fact might say you are right and they are more likely. But without those facts, you are talking out of your ass. Specifically to the former RIM leaders, Lazaridis and Balsillie were known for want to build legacies, with RIM and with their other projects. That speaks volumes against your silly suggestion that they started it in order to sell it. If that was the case, they would have sold it when they were on top.
I see now that you are just trolling with a new alt. Have fun with that.
WHY would you sell it when you are PROFITING yet...RIM tried to sell it last year BUT there were NO takers...so RIM will go just like Nortel, another Canadian start-up casualty! BTW, does RIM even have any sort of product except the their antiquated Blackberry model...NONE, because they really have NO long-term business plans at ALL! Even the new CEO said they will have NO changes for the company...just goes to show that they really wanted to sell the stupid business!
Truth HURTS, eh??! You must be one of RIM's duped stockholders...har, har, har! BYE-bye to your hard-earned money!
WHY would you sell it when you are PROFITING yet...RIM tried to sell it last year BUT there were NO takers...so RIM will go just like Nortel, another Canadian start-up casualty! BTW, does RIM even have any sort of product except the their antiquated Blackberry model...NONE, because they really have NO long-term business plans at ALL! Even the new CEO said they will have NO changes for the company...just goes to show that they really wanted to sell the stupid business!
Umm, duh, because if you really do want to sell it, that is when it is worth the most.
Umm, duh, because if you really do want to sell it, that is when it is worth the most.
duh.
NOT exactly, what a lot of Canadian start-ups DO is to sell it NOT when it is still on top (since they want to get the MOST profits first) BUT when it is still attractive, but already waning, for the simple reason that there really are NO long-term business plans at all to sustain their Canadian start-up...lol!!
I get it. Neat trick! Next time I write something wrong, I will simply chalk to down *slumming* too.
Whether it's criminal conduct is not up to anyone's view. It's up to the court system to decide, if the police or FBI (in case there's no FBI in Canada, I am just making it easy for others to relate ) see fit to investigate and proceed with charges. We are so far from that and you are already talking about Canadians to foot the bill.
How? How can Canadian citizens press for anything? Are the Finns pressing for Nokia to face criminal charges? Are Americans pressing for HP, Dell and Palm to face criminal charges?
Now you make sense. I am sure Canadians have more pressing matters than to interfere with the running of a company, even if the company had bungled its decisions.
I agree wholeheartedly that these changes are not changes at all. Personally, I am quite disappointed. But criminal charges? Watching too much Law & Order?
Using a US term is 'slumming'? I should say, nice trick there. Do you think I only know congress as a governmental system? Duuuhhhh geee, what's this westimenisterrrrr plarliamenataryy thingymajiggg y'all iz talkin 'bout??
Yes, criminal charges should be pressed against many elements in the financial and corporate world. Like I said, I am not in the US or Canada so I leave it to them. Nokia did admit to their problems and made reasonable attempts to change. The US criminality is amongst the banks and financial institutions, HP and so on not the key focus.
Do you think the Canadian government isn't already propping up elements of RIM? I guess most of the RIM employees that have been laid off so far haven't had to touch a cent of public funds, they must have millions in their bank accounts to depend on. How nice of RIM.
Do you think the US isn't enslaved to the financial industry?
I don't watch much TV crime shows nowadays because somebody mugging you of $200 is nothing compared with bankers ripping off trillions from the global financial system. Because the bankers control the networks which control the shows that make you scared of that dodgy-looking guy down the street rather than the real evil in corporate penthouses.
Comments
If you were a Canadian citizen, you would not be able to find a congressperson because there is no such beast up there in Canada. This just makes the rest of your tirade rather silly. Criminal conduct? What's criminal is your lack of basic knowledge of the world.
I am not in the USA. I used congressperson because it relates to most people reading the forum.
I'll let your ad hominem slide. Nice try assuming what I don't or do know about the world.
It is criminal conduct in my view, and Canadians will eventually have to foot the bill, if they haven't already, for these kinds of shenanigans.
Your call, Canadians. I suggest you press for this fiasco to be sorted out ASAP.
Maybe Canadians have more pressing matters, I of course won't sink to insulting Canadians, which is not my point anyway.
The case is clear. You have two Co-Chairmen, Co-CEOs that have presided over a failing company for four years. Now they are still on the Board, and one is "Chariman of Innovation". Next, you have a banker that has been sitting on the same Board for four years while everything went South and she's now independent Chair. You have a guy very closely related to their actual failing products, and he's now the CEO. This CEO is also "staying the course" ~ which obviously raises the point, why would he have been chosen if he's just going to "stay the course"? A puppet, perhaps?
What's wrong with this picture? I'll leave it to you all.
and WHY should I do your research for YOU??? As I said go DO your own research...there are lots of information about it, just ask Kevin O' Leary about it!
Ok, I called Kevin. He said you were full of crap too.
I am not in the USA. I used congressperson because it relates to most people reading the forum.
I get it. Neat trick! Next time I write something wrong, I will simply chalk to down *slumming* too.
It is criminal conduct in my view, and Canadians will eventually have to foot the bill, if they haven't already, for these kinds of shenanigans.
Whether it's criminal conduct is not up to anyone's view. It's up to the court system to decide, if the police or FBI (in case there's no FBI in Canada, I am just making it easy for others to relate
Your call, Canadians. I suggest you press for this fiasco to be sorted out ASAP.
How? How can Canadian citizens press for anything? Are the Finns pressing for Nokia to face criminal charges? Are Americans pressing for HP, Dell and Palm to face criminal charges?
Maybe Canadians have more pressing matters, I of course won't sink to insulting Canadians, which is not my point anyway.
Now you make sense. I am sure Canadians have more pressing matters than to interfere with the running of a company, even if the company had bungled its decisions.
The case is clear. You have two Co-Chairmen, Co-CEOs that have presided over a failing company for four years. Now they are still on the Board, and one is "Chariman of Innovation". Next, you have a banker that has been sitting on the same Board for four years while everything went South and she's now independent Chair. You have a guy very closely related to their actual failing products, and he's now the CEO. This CEO is also "staying the course" ~ which obviously raises the point, why would he have been chosen if he's just going to "stay the course"? A puppet, perhaps?
What's wrong with this picture? I'll leave it to you all.
I agree wholeheartedly that these changes are not changes at all. Personally, I am quite disappointed. But criminal charges? Watching too much Law & Order?
Ok, I called Kevin. He said you were full of crap too.
What's the saying: "Cussing is a FEEBLE-mind's futile attempt to sound strong on a losing argument"...har, har, har!
PS
Just ask HOW Kevin SOLD his "The Learning Company" for millions of dollars...hehehe!!!
What's the saying: "Cussing is a FEEBLE-mind's futile attempt to sound strong on a losing argument"...har, har, har!
PS
Just ask HOW Kevin SOLD his "The Learning Company" for millions of dollars...hehehe!!!
That's the thing. You have no argument to win or lose against. You have only statements and assertions that you don't know how to back up. You are being dishonest. Own it.
*and for factual honesty, he sold it for billions.
That's the thing. You have no argument to win or lose against. You have only statements and assertions that you don't know how to back up. You are being dishonest. Own it.
*and for factual honesty, he sold it for billions.
I DO, and even GAVE you an example...go ASK Kevin, he knows a lot about Canadian start-ups (RIM and NORTEL unfortunately didn't get SOLD, because they are LOSERS) whose sole purpose is to SELL the businesses LATER for PROFIT!
BTW, Steve Jobs hated those type of start-ups!
I DO, and even GAVE you an example...go ASK Kevin, he knows a lot about Canadian start-ups (RIM and NORTEL unfortunately didn't get SOLD, because they are LOSERS) whose sole purpose is to SELL the businesses LATER for PROFIT!
BTW, Steve Jobs hated those type of start-ups!
I didn't ask for examples. Examples don't make facts. You said "Canadians are known to start a business, hoping it gets sold LATER...and RIM/Nortel are prime examples! That IS the reason why they had NO future plans to make the business stay long!"
Back it up. The facts might suggest that Canadians are less likely to do so. The fact might say you are right and they are more likely. But without those facts, you are talking out of your ass. Specifically to the former RIM leaders, Lazaridis and Balsillie were known for want to build legacies, with RIM and with their other projects. That speaks volumes against your silly suggestion that they started it in order to sell it. If that was the case, they would have sold it when they were on top.
I see now that you are just trolling with a new alt. Have fun with that.
I didn't ask for examples. Examples don't make facts. You said "Canadians are known to start a business, hoping it gets sold LATER...and RIM/Nortel are prime examples! That IS the reason why they had NO future plans to make the business stay long!"
Back it up. The facts might suggest that Canadians are less likely to do so. The fact might say you are right and they are more likely. But without those facts, you are talking out of your ass. Specifically to the former RIM leaders, Lazaridis and Balsillie were known for want to build legacies, with RIM and with their other projects. That speaks volumes against your silly suggestion that they started it in order to sell it. If that was the case, they would have sold it when they were on top.
I see now that you are just trolling with a new alt. Have fun with that.
WHY would you sell it when you are PROFITING yet...RIM tried to sell it last year BUT there were NO takers...so RIM will go just like Nortel, another Canadian start-up casualty! BTW, does RIM even have any sort of product except the their antiquated Blackberry model...NONE, because they really have NO long-term business plans at ALL! Even the new CEO said they will have NO changes for the company...just goes to show that they really wanted to sell the stupid business!
Truth HURTS, eh??! You must be one of RIM's duped stockholders...har, har, har! BYE-bye to your hard-earned money!
WHY would you sell it when you are PROFITING yet...RIM tried to sell it last year BUT there were NO takers...so RIM will go just like Nortel, another Canadian start-up casualty! BTW, does RIM even have any sort of product except the their antiquated Blackberry model...NONE, because they really have NO long-term business plans at ALL! Even the new CEO said they will have NO changes for the company...just goes to show that they really wanted to sell the stupid business!
Umm, duh, because if you really do want to sell it, that is when it is worth the most.
duh.
Umm, duh, because if you really do want to sell it, that is when it is worth the most.
duh.
NOT exactly, what a lot of Canadian start-ups DO is to sell it NOT when it is still on top (since they want to get the MOST profits first) BUT when it is still attractive, but already waning, for the simple reason that there really are NO long-term business plans at all to sustain their Canadian start-up...lol!!
I get it. Neat trick! Next time I write something wrong, I will simply chalk to down *slumming* too.
Whether it's criminal conduct is not up to anyone's view. It's up to the court system to decide, if the police or FBI (in case there's no FBI in Canada, I am just making it easy for others to relate
How? How can Canadian citizens press for anything? Are the Finns pressing for Nokia to face criminal charges? Are Americans pressing for HP, Dell and Palm to face criminal charges?
Now you make sense. I am sure Canadians have more pressing matters than to interfere with the running of a company, even if the company had bungled its decisions.
I agree wholeheartedly that these changes are not changes at all. Personally, I am quite disappointed. But criminal charges? Watching too much Law & Order?
Using a US term is 'slumming'? I should say, nice trick there. Do you think I only know congress as a governmental system? Duuuhhhh geee, what's this westimenisterrrrr plarliamenataryy thingymajiggg y'all iz talkin 'bout??
Yes, criminal charges should be pressed against many elements in the financial and corporate world. Like I said, I am not in the US or Canada so I leave it to them. Nokia did admit to their problems and made reasonable attempts to change. The US criminality is amongst the banks and financial institutions, HP and so on not the key focus.
Do you think the Canadian government isn't already propping up elements of RIM? I guess most of the RIM employees that have been laid off so far haven't had to touch a cent of public funds, they must have millions in their bank accounts to depend on. How nice of RIM.
Do you think the US isn't enslaved to the financial industry?
I don't watch much TV crime shows nowadays because somebody mugging you of $200 is nothing compared with bankers ripping off trillions from the global financial system. Because the bankers control the networks which control the shows that make you scared of that dodgy-looking guy down the street rather than the real evil in corporate penthouses.