Microsoft Hatred FAQ

David Schwartz davids at
Wed Oct 19 12:15:03 CEST 2005

"Roedy Green" <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website at munged.invalid> wrote in 
message news:vm6cl19r7j3r6b4o73d5m3ab2bmih2v3j6 at

> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, "David Schwartz"
> <davids at> 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.


More information about the Python-list mailing list