Could it be that Boston is still pissed off at Apple (Jobs) for moving Apple Mac World Convention out of that city?
On another note- The Boston Retirement Board aught to show up at the next Apple Board meeting (every board meeting for that matter) and give foot massages to all the board members. If Apple board members hadn't "back dated" Steve's option package", then Steve probablly wouldn't had given it up. In which case his option package would be worth well over 3 BILLIONS dollars today (even after deducting the 105 Million dollars of "extra value".). The 750 Million dollars Steve got in exchange for voluntarily giving up his option package, will probablly go down as the century's worst investment decision ever made. No wonder Steve is only worth 1 Dollar a year.
Backdating is not illegal and is commonly practiced. Accounting incorrectly for backdating is illegal. If it can be shown that jobs actively facilitated bad accounting, then he's in trouble, otherwise, this is a nuisance event.
If he wanted more pay, I think he should have asked for it through proper channels than basically write himself a check without oversight.
But he didn't just write himself a check. Unless I am wrong the board gave him this as a way to say thank you for what he has done for the company. And didn't he let some of these expire without ever cashing them in.
But he didn't just write himself a check. Unless I am wrong the board gave him this as a way to say thank you for what he has done for the company. And didn't he let some of these expire without ever cashing them in.
It's not exactly the same, but the effect is similar because changing the date of the option is like writing in a different value for the option price. The options were given to him in the clear, with proper procedures, but that wasn't the problem. As far as we know, the options were redated without oversight from the board, which made the options more valuable in a way that I think is improper. One meeting was even fabricated to try to make it look like the board approved it.
I don't know if he just let some expire, but I do remember that some backdated options were traded in for options that weren't backdated.
I don't have a problem with Jobs making money, however, I do have a problem with this sort of activity. He probably could have just *asked* for more options and gotten them without getting the risk of getting caught with your hands in the cookie jar.
He Also runs/owns a portion of Pixar and Disney, for f--k's sake, he has zero motivation to scam 100 million dollars when he's worth BILLIONS.
Unfortunately, having money does not negate people from wanting more if they think they can get away with getting it by unscrupulous means. That said, the SEC has already exonerated Jobsy.
I can't say I understand that, here, isn't summonsed is a verb too? It would make more sense to me to use the verb form rather than verbing the noun into something else. It's as if a verb was "noun-ed", and then "re-verbed".
It sounds like another one of those rules which some pompous 15th century bishop made up and too many people went along with it.
Much like "its" and "it's".
I don't care what the prims and propers say, I was taught in grade school:
Apostrophe S is added to show possession, and non-apostrophe S is added to show plural.
P E R I O D.
I don't give a damn what the "it rule" says. Ignoring it does not make me a twit. Following what is clearly stupid, ridiculous, and nonsensical just because everybody else does makes YOU a sheep.
Unfortunately, having money does not negate people from wanting more if they think they can get away with getting it by unscrupulous means. That said, the SEC has already exonerated Jobsy.
I can see that, but but that's "people". This is Steve. Do not lump him in, please. It only makes you look bad.
He Also runs/owns a portion of Pixar and Disney, for f--k's sake, he has zero motivation to scam 100 million dollars when he's worth BILLIONS.
That's hardly a good argument. It doesn't matter how much money someone has, the tendency is to want more. Even when he's worth billions, 100M is still a good amount of money, especially if all one has to do is fudge the date by a week or two to get it.
I don't care what the prims and propers say, I was taught in grade school:
Apostrophe S is added to show possession, and non-apostrophe S is added to show plural.
P E R I O D.
I don't give a damn what the "it rule" says. Ignoring it does not make me a twit. Following what is clearly stupid, ridiculous, and nonsensical just because everybody else does makes YOU a sheep.
Yeah. Following basic rules of grammar makes you a sheep, because..... you learned something in grade school and decided it must be applied indiscriminately, no exceptions.
We discussed this about five posts ago, and unfortunately, it looks like "summonsed" is the correct one here.
Not as far as use by jurists is concerned. A summons is issued. A process server serves the summons. The recipient is summoned to appear before the judge.
I'm really tired of reading "so what?" responses to things like this. While language is always evolving, there is no reason to not use your head when writing. There is no reason for any writer to simply create a word just because he/she is too lazy to check for the proper word.
It's like saying I almost accidented when the radio program I was listening to in the car (while I was carring) announcered that a certain person was guilted into moving from city X to city Y. Announcering like that nonsensed. Capiche?
Not as far as use by jurists is concerned. A summons is issued. A process server serves the summons. The recipient is summoned to appear before the judge.
I'm really tired of reading "so what?" responses to things like this. While language is always evolving, there is no reason to not use your head when writing. There is no reason for any writer to simply create a word just because he/she is too lazy to check for the proper word.
Too lazy to check for the proper word? I did check as part of the discussion. Did you, or were you just relying on instinct?
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Quote:
verb [ trans. ] chiefly Law
serve (someone) with a summons : [ trans. ] he has been summonsed to appear in court next month.
There is no reason for any writer to simply create a word just because he/she is too lazy to check for the proper word.
I completesly agrees ands yous ares completesly incorrects.
The issue people seem to have with this word (and those like it) is they that summons is the single form of the noun variant of the verb and not plural. Though in law, the verb form refers to the writ and thus gets the appending 's'. The plural form is summonses and the past participle is summonsed.
While the words summon and summons come from similar origins, have parallel etymologies and associated definitions they are different and distinct.
Summon: ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French somondre, from Latin summonere ‘give a hint,’ later ‘call, summon,’ from sub- ‘secretly’ + monere ‘warn.’
Summons: ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French sumunse, from an alteration of Latin summonita, feminine past participle of summonere
Like it or not, that is the correct spelling for the usage. If you take issue with this word not following the normal formation then there are many, many more words that fall into this infamous category.
Lucky Day: (Reading telegram) "Three Amigos, Hollywood, California. You are very great. 100,000 pesos. Come to Santa Poco put on show, stop. The Infamous El Guapo."
Dusty Bottoms: What does that mean, in-famous?
Ned Nederlander: Oh, Dusty. In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's INNNN-famous.
Lucky Day: 100,000 pesos to perform with this El Guapo, who's probably the biggest actor to come out of Mexico!
Aha! This from the same folks who bring us such stuff as "liased!"
What is "liased"? It's not coming up in my dictionary. I'm using the OS X dictionary, which I take part of what I said back, it's an "Oxford American Dictionary", not English.
What is "liased"? It's not coming up in my dictionary. I'm using the OS X dictionary, which I take part of what I said back, it's an "Oxford American Dictionary", not English.
I think he may referring to liaise. Which makes the intransitive verb liaised, which is the same type of word as summonsed.
liaise: ORIGIN 1920s (originally British military slang): back-formation from liaison
Comments
Using summoned for summonsed would make you sound like an "illiterate twit".
Only if you fail to consider the meaning of the piece of paper that the noun refers to in the first place
Could it be that Boston is still pissed off at Apple (Jobs) for moving Apple Mac World Convention out of that city?
On another note- The Boston Retirement Board aught to show up at the next Apple Board meeting (every board meeting for that matter) and give foot massages to all the board members. If Apple board members hadn't "back dated" Steve's option package", then Steve probablly wouldn't had given it up. In which case his option package would be worth well over 3 BILLIONS dollars today (even after deducting the 105 Million dollars of "extra value".). The 750 Million dollars Steve got in exchange for voluntarily giving up his option package, will probablly go down as the century's worst investment decision ever made. No wonder Steve is only worth 1 Dollar a year.
Backdating is not illegal and is commonly practiced. Accounting incorrectly for backdating is illegal. If it can be shown that jobs actively facilitated bad accounting, then he's in trouble, otherwise, this is a nuisance event.
that's "summoned" not "summonsed."
We discussed this about five posts ago, and unfortunately, it looks like "summonsed" is the correct one here.
If he wanted more pay, I think he should have asked for it through proper channels than basically write himself a check without oversight.
But he didn't just write himself a check. Unless I am wrong the board gave him this as a way to say thank you for what he has done for the company. And didn't he let some of these expire without ever cashing them in.
But he didn't just write himself a check. Unless I am wrong the board gave him this as a way to say thank you for what he has done for the company. And didn't he let some of these expire without ever cashing them in.
It's not exactly the same, but the effect is similar because changing the date of the option is like writing in a different value for the option price. The options were given to him in the clear, with proper procedures, but that wasn't the problem. As far as we know, the options were redated without oversight from the board, which made the options more valuable in a way that I think is improper. One meeting was even fabricated to try to make it look like the board approved it.
I don't know if he just let some expire, but I do remember that some backdated options were traded in for options that weren't backdated.
I don't have a problem with Jobs making money, however, I do have a problem with this sort of activity. He probably could have just *asked* for more options and gotten them without getting the risk of getting caught with your hands in the cookie jar.
He runs the company, but he only owns a portion of it.
He Also runs/owns a portion of Pixar and Disney, for f--k's sake, he has zero motivation to scam 100 million dollars when he's worth BILLIONS.
perhaps somebody should check and see if any of these litigious fund managers are shorting any AAPL this month?
He Also runs/owns a portion of Pixar and Disney, for f--k's sake, he has zero motivation to scam 100 million dollars when he's worth BILLIONS.
Unfortunately, having money does not negate people from wanting more if they think they can get away with getting it by unscrupulous means. That said, the SEC has already exonerated Jobsy.
I can't say I understand that, here, isn't summonsed is a verb too? It would make more sense to me to use the verb form rather than verbing the noun into something else. It's as if a verb was "noun-ed", and then "re-verbed".
It sounds like another one of those rules which some pompous 15th century bishop made up and too many people went along with it.
Much like "its" and "it's".
I don't care what the prims and propers say, I was taught in grade school:
Apostrophe S is added to show possession, and non-apostrophe S is added to show plural.
P E R I O D.
I don't give a damn what the "it rule" says. Ignoring it does not make me a twit. Following what is clearly stupid, ridiculous, and nonsensical just because everybody else does makes YOU a sheep.
Unfortunately, having money does not negate people from wanting more if they think they can get away with getting it by unscrupulous means. That said, the SEC has already exonerated Jobsy.
I can see that, but but that's "people". This is Steve. Do not lump him in, please. It only makes you look bad.
He Also runs/owns a portion of Pixar and Disney, for f--k's sake, he has zero motivation to scam 100 million dollars when he's worth BILLIONS.
That's hardly a good argument. It doesn't matter how much money someone has, the tendency is to want more. Even when he's worth billions, 100M is still a good amount of money, especially if all one has to do is fudge the date by a week or two to get it.
I don't care what the prims and propers say, I was taught in grade school:
Apostrophe S is added to show possession, and non-apostrophe S is added to show plural.
P E R I O D.
Well, you were taught something incorrect then, weren't you?
What about the use of the apostrophe to indicate missing letters?
Much like "its" and "it's".
I don't care what the prims and propers say, I was taught in grade school:
Apostrophe S is added to show possession, and non-apostrophe S is added to show plural.
P E R I O D.
I don't give a damn what the "it rule" says. Ignoring it does not make me a twit. Following what is clearly stupid, ridiculous, and nonsensical just because everybody else does makes YOU a sheep.
Yeah. Following basic rules of grammar makes you a sheep, because..... you learned something in grade school and decided it must be applied indiscriminately, no exceptions.
Also, the plural of mouse is mouses, losers.
He Also runs/owns a portion of Pixar and Disney, for f--k's sake, he has zero motivation to scam 100 million dollars when he's worth BILLIONS.
perhaps somebody should check and see if any of these litigious fund managers are shorting any AAPL this month?
Ahh, the naivë faith that Americans have in the moneyed! The belief that Greed is next to Godliness.
Have you ever noticed that the super rich never have enough. They always have to eat off someone else's plate.
I used to work for someone who seemed to always have empty pockets. He would forever sponge off me or his chaufeur. Now that's how you get rich.
We discussed this about five posts ago, and unfortunately, it looks like "summonsed" is the correct one here.
Not as far as use by jurists is concerned. A summons is issued. A process server serves the summons. The recipient is summoned to appear before the judge.
I'm really tired of reading "so what?" responses to things like this. While language is always evolving, there is no reason to not use your head when writing. There is no reason for any writer to simply create a word just because he/she is too lazy to check for the proper word.
It's like saying I almost accidented when the radio program I was listening to in the car (while I was carring) announcered that a certain person was guilted into moving from city X to city Y. Announcering like that nonsensed. Capiche?
Oh, and BTW, I missed the earlier thread.
Not as far as use by jurists is concerned. A summons is issued. A process server serves the summons. The recipient is summoned to appear before the judge.
I'm really tired of reading "so what?" responses to things like this. While language is always evolving, there is no reason to not use your head when writing. There is no reason for any writer to simply create a word just because he/she is too lazy to check for the proper word.
Too lazy to check for the proper word? I did check as part of the discussion. Did you, or were you just relying on instinct?
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
verb [ trans. ] chiefly Law
serve (someone) with a summons : [ trans. ] he has been summonsed to appear in court next month.
It looks like the right word to me.
There is no reason for any writer to simply create a word just because he/she is too lazy to check for the proper word.
I completesly agrees ands yous ares completesly incorrects.
The issue people seem to have with this word (and those like it) is they that summons is the single form of the noun variant of the verb and not plural. Though in law, the verb form refers to the writ and thus gets the appending 's'. The plural form is summonses and the past participle is summonsed.
While the words summon and summons come from similar origins, have parallel etymologies and associated definitions they are different and distinct.
Like it or not, that is the correct spelling for the usage. If you take issue with this word not following the normal formation then there are many, many more words that fall into this infamous category.
Too lazy to check for the proper word? I did check as part of the discussion. Did you, or were you just relying on instinct?
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
It looks like the right word to me.
Aha! This from the same folks who bring us such stuff as "liased!" Of course I looked but I used my usual Merriam Webster, which shows:
"summonsed
One entry found.
summons[2,transitive verb]
Main Entry:
2summons
OTOH, maybe I should admit defeat and go with the flow here; it's language usage by democracy! I've been outvoted.
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1683"
Of course I looked but I used my usual Merriam Webster, which shows:
"summonsed"
One entry found.
Is one entry not enough?
Aha! This from the same folks who bring us such stuff as "liased!"
What is "liased"? It's not coming up in my dictionary. I'm using the OS X dictionary, which I take part of what I said back, it's an "Oxford American Dictionary", not English.
What is "liased"? It's not coming up in my dictionary. I'm using the OS X dictionary, which I take part of what I said back, it's an "Oxford American Dictionary", not English.
I think he may referring to liaise. Which makes the intransitive verb liaised, which is the same type of word as summonsed.