Replies

Posts from me to you. And vice verse...

#27 First post me to you: No comment about you personally, recapping review of a study I did reviewing 10 years of political donations (2001-2010) by Apple corporation, Steve Jobs, Apple Employees’ PAC vis-a-vis Microsoft, Intel, Dell, HP. PLUS Recap of a published article on readers of NYTimes and computer use v. Political slant. My take on a conservative slant to actual policies implemented by Steve Jobs and Apple on careers, porn, etc.

#48 you to me: misrepresenting my entire factual post into one claim that I was claiming I was blaming the employees. Then claimed the reason manufacturing was moved to China to avoid EPA regulations in absence of other economic reasons. . . despite fact that Apple was the last major computer maker to do so. Next you raised the need for a minimum wage as though that were a paragon conservative issue. Then you were critical of Apple’s overseas profits on which taxes had been already paid where they’d been earned as though there was something vile about not voluntarily paying taxes they did not owe, a claim only being made by LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who want to get their greedy hands on it. Then you added your general screed against “St. Steve” filled with half-truths and rumors based on years of FUD.

#70 me to you: replied to your mis-information with facts. Stated that Apple moved to “remain competitive.” Told you well known facts about Apple requiring the clean up of the plants building their products. In most cases, the plants exceeded EPA standards. If Apple moved to avoid standards, why require more, when it is NOT required at the new location? I then outlined Apple’s contractual requirements for pay and labor standards for companies building their products. . . and the contractor’s obligations toward any underage workers found. Finally, I presented the known factual data on the tax issues that has been published in even the main stream media such as Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and other legitimate sources. . . but ignored by the liberal FUD spreading editorial writers and Democrat Senators that you echoed. BUT, so far not a single insult to you, personal attack, or slur, not even a denigration of your erroneous opinions.

#72 you to me: a post dripping with sarcastic strawman misrepresentations of my comments, claiming you said things I did not attribute to you, so you could shoot them down, such as “And I never said they paid zero taxes, only that if you’re going to send money to Democrats and then turn around and try to shield even a part of your earnings from taxes, you’re worse than a hypocrite.” The people who brought up the tax issues against Apple—that YOU claimed as your own, thereby accepting their arguments—did INDEED haul Tim Cook before Congress, claiming Apple paid ZERO taxes, when the facts show Apple pays more taxes than 60% of the companies listed on the New York and NASDAQ stock exchanges combined!!! Yet YOU ran with the FUD about “parking profits offshore to avoid taxes” when it is easy to learn that’s false. . . but I didn’t attack YOU, I only provided the correct information. YOU got insulted because you were proved wrong by someone who disagreed with your opinion. . . so you got derisive and sarcastic. It’s obvious in this post.

#95 me to you: I merely challenged you to prove your assertions viv-a-vis “staying competitive” means fleeing EPA regulations, that the standards Apple imposed on the Chinese plants wouldn’t pass muster in the USA, and that Apple “paid the Democrats” to create those EPA regulations. Plus everything else in post #72. A challenge you’ve ignored. . . which, Leonard, is unfortunately typical of trolls. Still no insults, slurs, or invective from me to you.

#100 you to me: you want to define a well understood term and principle in business and economics according to your narrow experience. . . from a labor union viewpoint, a viewpoint that seems indistinguishable from that which would be taken by a Democrat. You complain I haven’t defined this standard, well defined principle.

#101 me to you: I give some of the economic reasons a company, specifically Apple, moved their manufacturing to China. Also decrying growth of regulation under both Republican and Democrat administrations. . . neither is blameless. Still no attacks, insults, etc.

#103 you to me: another derision, sarcasm loaded, misrepresentative of what I wrote to you post. I did NOT redefine “what it means to ‘stay competitive’” but you demonstrated your woeful lack of knowledge of business principles and economics. You then used one example Steve Jobs used with Barack Obama as a reason why the jobs cannot be brought back as the singular reason Apple is in China. . . when I gave several. THEN you claim I didn’t provide any more quotations from Steve Jobs’ THREE HOUR meeting with Obama. . . as though that were a failing on my part. . . and that I don’t have a transcript of that meeting. No one does. But both Jobs and Obama released press releases on what was discussed and it’s covered in Jobs’ biography. . . Where there are lots of quotations from that meeting. Your posts are critical... And demeaning because you want ME to do your study for you. Why would you accuse me of “acting like there was only one sentence uttered” when I neither implied or uttered any such thing. . . Another misrepresentation which I cannot help but think is deliberate.

#105 me to you: rhetorical question about your positions and membership in the Democrat party. Mild rebuke. . . A bit sarcastic.

#106 me to you: my comment about Apple not building a factory in China. You have been implying Apple were paying the workers, building factories, doing everything they could not do here, there. I corrected the misinformation. No insults.

#107 you to me: your background experience with bad bosses. Gratuitous insult to me implying I only get my information from Apple releases. . . claim I’m weird. Quite insulting...

#108 you to me: you insult me with derisive term “genius”. . . More derision. . . questioning of facts with sarcasm. Sad.

#109 me to you: I question your knowledge of Apple’s Chinese manufacturing using “genius” back at you. . . And explain how the contract model works for Apple and others. I suggest you get educated about Apple. Staying ignorant is stupid.

#110 me to you: my response to your implication my information comes solely from Apple press releases. Tell you I use primary sources.

#111 you to me: again you exaggerate what I said, making a strawman for you to whack at. Snarky and snide, you ask a rhetoric question which shows you have not bothered to consider the truth of anything I’ve told you. It means I’m wasting my valuable time. Insulting.

#112 you to me: belittling and snarky. “Such a cute way with words.” Designed to make me angry. Doesn’t work. Again, “primary sources.” Look it up.

#113 you to me: more snark. Your premise about minimum wage avoidance. Please show that Apple EVER paid anyone minimum wage—anywhere. . . Apple store workers start at around $13 an hour. . . workers at Apple assembly plant in the USA were up to $30 starting wages in the 1990s. . . so how do they “avoid minimum wage laws” when they don’t hire people who earn minimum wages???? Your premise is flawed from the start. Your attitude is one of superior knowledge, when you don’t have it. You have assumptions. You ask how it works I think you act like a Democrat

#114 me to you: I explain primary sources. . . And lay out your factual errors, again.

#116 me to you: I explain why you act like a Democrat. I ask why you allowed yourself to be abused by bosses. No insults.

#117 you to me: you again misrepresent my comment by setting up a strawman to knock down about Apple press releases. More snarkiness.

#118 me to you: I criticize you snark. Suggest you stop. Ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. . . Which on this review, I find you have a serious, shall we say Alinsky, tendency to do. . . having counted at least TEN occasions where you exaggerated my comments into something I did not say so you could distort them to counter them. Bad form, but the exact method Liberals use.

#119 you to me: now you escalate my comments from “creepy” to “dishonest.” Very insulting. You then question my job history: “real job?” Seriously?

#120 you to me: you accuse me of name calling. But I have gone through 22 exchanges between you and I and the closest I have come to calling you a name is suggesting you might be acting like a Democrat and that you are ignorant, a curable state, about Apple, a condition which I have diligently tried to cure. You on the other hand, have insulted me repeatedly. . . Both implied and directly. You then compound the sin of implying things I have NOT said or intended to mean. You even use quotes around your false things imputed to me. Then you accuse me of lying about you when I’ve said nothing about you!

Now, Leonard, I’ve spent far too much time on this and there are more posts. . . . But YOU won’t care. I have read every word and I have not called you names. I have disagreed with your “facts” and have presented the truth. You choose to nitpick. . . demanding I providing you links and extraordinary evidence to data that is actually easily found. I’ve been down this road too many times before. I’m just not going to do it again. No amount of evidence will work. Your mind is closed.