"Roedy Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted :
>> They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
>>failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in
>>lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the
>>harm these failures will do to the shareholders.
> That's the view of Republican, but it is not the only view. Some
> might say the law trumps that. It does not matter if breaking the law
> would be more profitable, you still don't do it.
Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much
profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders.
I am only continuing this off-topic thread on newsgroups that probably
don't want it because it is a basic principle of fairness that a false or
distorted comment deserves an rebuttal anywhere that false or distorted
comment appears. However, it doesn't deserve a full debate anywhere except
where it's on-topic.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
