I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.
Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.
Thank you. I thought I was correct. A physical object only lays.
Solipism likes to confuse me- and once again it works. He almost convinced me I was wrong. I'm running on low batteries today.
You can't serve multiple masters. You are either in it for your customers or you are in it for your shareholders. Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.
A lie is a concept or thought, therefore- it lies.
The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.
If I am not mistaken, an officer of the company is obliged to disclose any such information to the board, but the board is not obliged to tell anybody without the consent of the officer.
Yes, I agree that the CEO has to let the board know. I was implicitly referring to a 'law' that requires that the board or the officer or the CEO or PR (or whoever) to tell shareholders (or any other stakeholder) about the health of anyone in the company. That is basically what bizwarrior was claiming.
I am not sure there is any such requirement.
In any event, I notice that bizwarrior hasn't answered the question........ not much knowledge about biz nor much of a warrior.....
And those testing the most sensitive projects are instructed "to cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful."
Thats just too far out. I don't believe that at all.
One place where I worked, visitors had to wear digital cow bells that flashed and beeped when they were near or inside secure areas to ensure you knew to shut up. Their procedures were far more Draconian than what's mentioned for Apple. VP's from other divisions were not allowed out of the elevator on certain floors, and everything was need-to-know. Even asking questions about projects could result in termination, just by having someone overhear you asking.
One place where I worked, visitors had to wear digital cow bells that flashed and beeped when they were near or inside secure areas to ensure you knew to shut up. Their procedures were far more Draconian than what's mentioned for Apple. VP's from other divisions were not allowed out of the elevator on certain floors, and everything was need-to-know. Even asking questions about projects could result in termination, just by having someone overhear you asking.
This would suggest that there is nothing particularly "unusual" about "Apple's veil of secrecy".
Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.
That is perhaps a false dichotomy. A company that truly cares about creating long-run value for its shareholders cannot achieve that goal without being in it for their customers.
There are many, many great companies where there is simply no distinction between the two.
The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.
You said that you were sure the sentence was wrong in US English. I mentioned that I was happy to take your word but looking it up there does not appear to be any difference. I do not agree with what teckstud says, by the way. The main difference between the two words is that lay is a transitive verb, while lie is an intransitive verb. In the context of what teckstud wrote, an intransitive verb is needed. Sorry to post on grammar.
You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.
Oh, good grief. Good freaking grief. Right here in a quote from the article you cited:
Quote:
"Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately," said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
Which in this case of course it could. And then,
Quote:
She said the SEC rules lack specific guidelines regarding health disclosures about executives, which means corporate directors have discretion over what kind of information they decide to tell the public.
"It's a fuzzy, gray area of what is required," Perryman said. "There is certainly interest among investors, but that doesn't mean they have a right to know."
And it goes on to discuss the grey areas in the SEC regulations as related to executive health issues, just as I represented them, and that some companies make an effort to disclose these issues because it's generally a good idea, just as I represented it. The NY Times article said much the same thing, quoting experts in corporate governance with different views on what the SEC regulations require. Views among experts differ because the rules aren't clear. Apple takes the most corporate/executive friendly view of the regulations. Other companies do not.
Read also the references to insider trading. Whether this has occurred is impossible to prove until well beyond the fact.
Did you read the article you cited? Did you understand what I wrote earlier?
I'm sure the people who bought AAPL in January after being assured it was only a hormone imbalance are furious. The stock's only gone up 50%. Jobs' leadership is and has been great for Apple, but he is not the only brilliant, capable man in the whole damn corporation. Shareholders might be concerned, but every well-read tech trader knows about Apple's secrecy and business model. Jobs' health is his own business - not the shareholders', and not the NY Times'.
Food for thought: If Ballmer left MS six months ago under the guise of a kidney stone, and came back having had a brain transplant, MSFT would split. Twice.
The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.
My rules are not only clearer, they are absolute.
lie
1.To exist; reside: Our sympathies lie with the plaintiff. (And this is where I meant it- not to physically lay down (a lie?)
2.To consist or have as a basis. Often used with in: The strength of his performance lies in his training.
I await your apology to not only me but to the entire board for such a diversion.
..... some companies make an effort to disclose these issues because it's generally a good idea, just as I represented it.
No, because they think it's a good idea. There is no evidence that says "....it's generally a good idea..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
. The NY Times article said much the same thing, quoting experts in corporate governance with different views....
The article is shallow nonsense. For instance, Prof Elson is quoted in the article as saying: "In this environment, where transparency is critical, the more information you give the marketplace the better,.....?
There is absolutely no evidence to back up a sweeping assertion like that.
You said that you were sure the sentence was wrong in US English. I mentioned that I was happy to take your word but looking it up there does not appear to be any difference. I do not agree with what teckstud says, by the way. The main difference between the two words is that lay is a transitive verb, while lie is an intransitive verb. In the context of what teckstud wrote, an intransitive verb is needed. Sorry to post on grammar.
Don't be afraid to agree with me- you know you want to.
What don't you agree with? Why do you feel the need to insult my post in the process- "once again, been an incoherent rant"?
Just because they can be sued doesn't mean it has merit or will go anywhere.
The merits of lawsuits get decided by judges in courtrooms and on the basis of the law and the facts, by nobody else, in no place else, and for no other reasons.
The point I've made a couple of times already here is that I think it's a shame that Apple exposes the company to lawsuits of this kind when protecting themselves from them better would be so easy. A lot of other companies recognize this. Secrecy may have great utility where new products are concerned, but has a real downside when applied to investor relations.
Comments
I would like to step in and defend teckstud: what he wrote is correct in English. I am happy to take your word that it is incorrect in American.
Therefore his post my have, once again, been an incoherent rant but it was grammatically correct - although not necessarily in the language he was trying to write in.
Thank you. I thought I was correct. A physical object only lays.
Solipism likes to confuse me- and once again it works. He almost convinced me I was wrong. I'm running on low batteries today.
British English doesn’t have the same rules about lie v. lay as US English?
Only a physical object lays.
A lie is a concept or thought, therefore- it lies.
Thank you.
I think I might just impose myself a ban for a couple of weeks.
I respectfully disagree, it is different when you have a brand like Jobs so intertwined in the value of a company.
Then don't buy the stock.
I seriously wish more companies were like the CEO of Costco and tell Wall Street to pretty much take it or leave it. All this pandering to stockholders is a serious limiter of innovation. I think the stock market is a serious parasite on corporate innovation.
You can't serve multiple masters. You are either in it for your customers or you are in it for your shareholders. Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.
I think I might just impose myself a ban for a couple of weeks.
That really had me on the floor.....
That really had me on the floor.....
Believe it or not, it was precisely the intention. I enjoy your posts very much.
Only a physical object lays.
A lie is a concept or thought, therefore- it lies.
The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.
If I am not mistaken, an officer of the company is obliged to disclose any such information to the board, but the board is not obliged to tell anybody without the consent of the officer.
Yes, I agree that the CEO has to let the board know. I was implicitly referring to a 'law' that requires that the board or the officer or the CEO or PR (or whoever) to tell shareholders (or any other stakeholder) about the health of anyone in the company. That is basically what bizwarrior was claiming.
I am not sure there is any such requirement.
In any event, I notice that bizwarrior hasn't answered the question........ not much knowledge about biz nor much of a warrior.....
And those testing the most sensitive projects are instructed "to cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful."
Thats just too far out. I don't believe that at all.
One place where I worked, visitors had to wear digital cow bells that flashed and beeped when they were near or inside secure areas to ensure you knew to shut up. Their procedures were far more Draconian than what's mentioned for Apple. VP's from other divisions were not allowed out of the elevator on certain floors, and everything was need-to-know. Even asking questions about projects could result in termination, just by having someone overhear you asking.
One place where I worked, visitors had to wear digital cow bells that flashed and beeped when they were near or inside secure areas to ensure you knew to shut up. Their procedures were far more Draconian than what's mentioned for Apple. VP's from other divisions were not allowed out of the elevator on certain floors, and everything was need-to-know. Even asking questions about projects could result in termination, just by having someone overhear you asking.
This would suggest that there is nothing particularly "unusual" about "Apple's veil of secrecy".
And my name-calling will never extend to fellow Apple users.
Yup. I won't name call any other Apple fans, but all the rest of you *&#%@$#! had better watch out!
Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.
That is perhaps a false dichotomy. A company that truly cares about creating long-run value for its shareholders cannot achieve that goal without being in it for their customers.
There are many, many great companies where there is simply no distinction between the two.
The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.
You said that you were sure the sentence was wrong in US English. I mentioned that I was happy to take your word but looking it up there does not appear to be any difference. I do not agree with what teckstud says, by the way. The main difference between the two words is that lay is a transitive verb, while lie is an intransitive verb. In the context of what teckstud wrote, an intransitive verb is needed. Sorry to post on grammar.
You better read up on what the SEC mandates. You are so far off base, it is a travesty that you opinions are on record.
Oh, good grief. Good freaking grief. Right here in a quote from the article you cited:
"Nothing is required to be disclosed unless the health issue affects his ability to steward the company appropriately," said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
Which in this case of course it could. And then,
She said the SEC rules lack specific guidelines regarding health disclosures about executives, which means corporate directors have discretion over what kind of information they decide to tell the public.
"It's a fuzzy, gray area of what is required," Perryman said. "There is certainly interest among investors, but that doesn't mean they have a right to know."
And it goes on to discuss the grey areas in the SEC regulations as related to executive health issues, just as I represented them, and that some companies make an effort to disclose these issues because it's generally a good idea, just as I represented it. The NY Times article said much the same thing, quoting experts in corporate governance with different views on what the SEC regulations require. Views among experts differ because the rules aren't clear. Apple takes the most corporate/executive friendly view of the regulations. Other companies do not.
Read also the references to insider trading. Whether this has occurred is impossible to prove until well beyond the fact.
Did you read the article you cited? Did you understand what I wrote earlier?
Apparently not in either case.
Food for thought: If Ballmer left MS six months ago under the guise of a kidney stone, and came back having had a brain transplant, MSFT would split. Twice.
The rules are very clear. The only confusing part is that the past tense of lie is lay. I can find no evidence that British and US English differ on this rule, nor of any exception that states that a concept or thought allow the breaking of said rule. Since you are quite sure that you are correct, I am wrong and that this rule clearly exists I implore you to post a link or copy/paste rule here to enlighten me.
My rules are not only clearer, they are absolute.
lie
1.To exist; reside: Our sympathies lie with the plaintiff. (And this is where I meant it- not to physically lay down (a lie?)
2.To consist or have as a basis. Often used with in: The strength of his performance lies in his training.
I await your apology to not only me but to the entire board for such a diversion.
then the company will get sued by investors.
Just because they can be sued doesn't mean it has merit or will go anywhere.
Unfortunately we don't' have tort reform like looser pays so frivolous crap like this happens far more often then it should
..... some companies make an effort to disclose these issues because it's generally a good idea, just as I represented it.
No, because they think it's a good idea. There is no evidence that says "....it's generally a good idea..."
. The NY Times article said much the same thing, quoting experts in corporate governance with different views....
The article is shallow nonsense. For instance, Prof Elson is quoted in the article as saying: "In this environment, where transparency is critical, the more information you give the marketplace the better,.....?
There is absolutely no evidence to back up a sweeping assertion like that.
You said that you were sure the sentence was wrong in US English. I mentioned that I was happy to take your word but looking it up there does not appear to be any difference. I do not agree with what teckstud says, by the way. The main difference between the two words is that lay is a transitive verb, while lie is an intransitive verb. In the context of what teckstud wrote, an intransitive verb is needed. Sorry to post on grammar.
Don't be afraid to agree with me- you know you want to.
What don't you agree with? Why do you feel the need to insult my post in the process- "once again, been an incoherent rant"?
Just because they can be sued doesn't mean it has merit or will go anywhere.
The merits of lawsuits get decided by judges in courtrooms and on the basis of the law and the facts, by nobody else, in no place else, and for no other reasons.
The point I've made a couple of times already here is that I think it's a shame that Apple exposes the company to lawsuits of this kind when protecting themselves from them better would be so easy. A lot of other companies recognize this. Secrecy may have great utility where new products are concerned, but has a real downside when applied to investor relations.