No it isn't. There is no burden of proof on expressing an opinion on an internet forum. There is a credibility question, but when Apple are so secretive about this stuff then equally if you're going to credibly defend a position then you should eat your own dogfood and prove [I]your[/I] assertions.
Congress could have changed gun laws. They didn't. End of discussion?
I didn't think I would have to spell it out even further for you, but if you want to be obstinate I may as well embarrass you completely.
Shareholders are the ones with the "right and responsibility to monitor executive remuneration". They didn't. They obviously believe he's receiving an acceptable amount of money. End of discussion, until such time as his compensation changes as a percentage of the revenue stream.
Get. Over. Your. Self. Your beliefs don't matter. If you want them to matter, buy more stock and whine louder, but when you start telling people how much they're allowed to earn, it goes both ways.
You can't end a discussion by saying "end of discussion". Even if you say it repeatedly. Doesn't work that way bro. If you don't want to discuss it then toddle on, that's your choice.
Maybe the majority of shareholders are happy with the pay package, it's not immediately clear, and certainly not "obvious" that they are. It's not unheard of for the mechanisms for renumeration oversight in large companies to be absent, and overlooked due to inertia. That doesn't mean that shareholders would be individually happy with the level of pay. It also doesn't help that institutional ownership distorts these things, as that kind of shareholder tends not to be concerned with things like executive pay. Doesn't mean they approve, it means they don't care either way.
Moreover, even if the majority do approve, so fucking what? That doesn't mean all do, that doesn't mean they're right to approve and that doesn't mean there can't be independent comment on whether $69m is an amount of money that a person can reasonably earn.
Also, "get over your self"? What are you talking about? Discussing things in a sensible way is not arrogance, and certainly not whining. Cutting off discussion for no reason other than you don't like it on the other hand...
Maybe the majority of shareholders are happy with the pay package, it's not immediately clear, and certainly not "obvious" that they are.
Do you see shareholders calling for a formal inquiry into his pay?
Doesn't mean they approve, it means they don't care either way.
Apathy is acceptance as much as it is rejection.
Moreover, even if the majority do approve, so fucking what?
So then you're wrong?
That doesn't mean all do, that doesn't mean they're right to approve and that doesn't mean there can't be independent comment on whether $69m is an amount of money that a person can reasonably earn.
It just means that the people who think they can tell others how much they earn don't matter, therefore are irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Didn't even notice this on first read
That pretty much shows you don't bother even reading responses to your comments.
Do you see shareholders calling for a formal inquiry into his pay?
Do I see them? Maybe, maybe not. What has that got to do with anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apathy is acceptance as much as it is rejection.
No it isn't. Apathy is apathy, and neither acceptance or rejection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So then you're wrong?
There's always a chance that I'm wrong, but no that's not an obvious implication, I just have more than one string to pluck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It just means that the people who think they can tell others how much they earn don't matter, therefore are irrelevant.
Newsflash braniac, there is nothing, nothing that is said on this message board that is going to have any effect on anything Apple does. Oppenheimer is not reading this. It's all irrelevant. Doesn't mean it can't be interesting. Not having the conversation at all however, is definitely uninteresting.
As I said before, if you don't find it interesting, don't click in, no one's forcing you to engage. You're the one trying to close down conversation. You're the one imposing yourself. You're the one demanding to be heard as relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That pretty much shows you don't bother even reading responses to your comments.
It really doesn't at all. Laughable attempt to discredit.
You're arguing with arguments that you've made up. Where did I say I saw shareholders doing anything? Where did I say that shareholders were the only people allowed opinions?
You take dogmatism in your refusal to brook any criticism of Apple or its practices to a ludicrous extreme.
You're arguing with arguments that you've made up. Where did I say I saw shareholders doing anything? Where did I say that shareholders were the only people allowed opinions?
Comments
I haven't asserted anything.
@ Talles skill: It seems to me that you are very fast on you conclusions. Keep us informed on your progress :-)
Originally Posted by osewisewose
@ Talles skill: It seems to me that you are very fast on you conclusions. Keep us informed on your progress :-)
What right do you have to say how much someone else makes?
Answer that and you'll be on your way to actually having an argument.
Everyone has the right to an opinion and the freedom to express it.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Shareholders have the right and the responsibility to monitor executive remuneration.
Well, when the shareholders complain about this, then we can say it's "too much".
Originally Posted by Crowley
Have no idea what point you're trying to prove now. You think all discussion needs to stall until a shareholder meeting? How dull.
He's being compensated. You said the shareholders can change that. They're not. End of discussion.
Nonsense you speak.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Congress could have changed gun laws. They didn't. End of discussion?
I didn't think I would have to spell it out even further for you, but if you want to be obstinate I may as well embarrass you completely.
Shareholders are the ones with the "right and responsibility to monitor executive remuneration". They didn't. They obviously believe he's receiving an acceptable amount of money. End of discussion, until such time as his compensation changes as a percentage of the revenue stream.
Get. Over. Your. Self. Your beliefs don't matter. If you want them to matter, buy more stock and whine louder, but when you start telling people how much they're allowed to earn, it goes both ways.
You can't end a discussion by saying "end of discussion". Even if you say it repeatedly. Doesn't work that way bro. If you don't want to discuss it then toddle on, that's your choice.
Maybe the majority of shareholders are happy with the pay package, it's not immediately clear, and certainly not "obvious" that they are. It's not unheard of for the mechanisms for renumeration oversight in large companies to be absent, and overlooked due to inertia. That doesn't mean that shareholders would be individually happy with the level of pay. It also doesn't help that institutional ownership distorts these things, as that kind of shareholder tends not to be concerned with things like executive pay. Doesn't mean they approve, it means they don't care either way.
Moreover, even if the majority do approve, so fucking what? That doesn't mean all do, that doesn't mean they're right to approve and that doesn't mean there can't be independent comment on whether $69m is an amount of money that a person can reasonably earn.
Also, "get over your self"? What are you talking about? Discussing things in a sensible way is not arrogance, and certainly not whining. Cutting off discussion for no reason other than you don't like it on the other hand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I may as well embarrass you completely.
Didn't even notice this on first read
What a grade A jerk you aspire to be.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Maybe the majority of shareholders are happy with the pay package, it's not immediately clear, and certainly not "obvious" that they are.
Do you see shareholders calling for a formal inquiry into his pay?
Doesn't mean they approve, it means they don't care either way.
Apathy is acceptance as much as it is rejection.
Moreover, even if the majority do approve, so fucking what?
So then you're wrong?
That doesn't mean all do, that doesn't mean they're right to approve and that doesn't mean there can't be independent comment on whether $69m is an amount of money that a person can reasonably earn.
It just means that the people who think they can tell others how much they earn don't matter, therefore are irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Didn't even notice this on first read
That pretty much shows you don't bother even reading responses to your comments.
Ah, multi quoting. I can do that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Do you see shareholders calling for a formal inquiry into his pay?
Do I see them? Maybe, maybe not. What has that got to do with anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apathy is acceptance as much as it is rejection.
No it isn't. Apathy is apathy, and neither acceptance or rejection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So then you're wrong?
There's always a chance that I'm wrong, but no that's not an obvious implication, I just have more than one string to pluck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It just means that the people who think they can tell others how much they earn don't matter, therefore are irrelevant.
Newsflash braniac, there is nothing, nothing that is said on this message board that is going to have any effect on anything Apple does. Oppenheimer is not reading this. It's all irrelevant. Doesn't mean it can't be interesting. Not having the conversation at all however, is definitely uninteresting.
As I said before, if you don't find it interesting, don't click in, no one's forcing you to engage. You're the one trying to close down conversation. You're the one imposing yourself. You're the one demanding to be heard as relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That pretty much shows you don't bother even reading responses to your comments.
It really doesn't at all. Laughable attempt to discredit.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Do I see them? Maybe, maybe not. What has that got to do with anything?
It's your argument. Don't play stupid; people will start to think you are.
I'm ignoring the rest. You're smart enough to see where you went wrong quite a while ago.
You're arguing with arguments that you've made up. Where did I say I saw shareholders doing anything? Where did I say that shareholders were the only people allowed opinions?
You take dogmatism in your refusal to brook any criticism of Apple or its practices to a ludicrous extreme.
Originally Posted by Crowley
You're arguing with arguments that you've made up. Where did I say I saw shareholders doing anything? Where did I say that shareholders were the only people allowed opinions?
Okay. Play stupid, then. *shrug*
Fine, getting bored of you anyway.