[Havoc]

I've read it plenty here, let's cut it to the crux of the biscuit: "you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut"

Now you're editing me to make me say something I didn't. What's the matter, can't deal with the full quote - you haven't yet. All you've proven to this moment is that you can Quote someone then lift part of the quote. Let's see how that works shall we:

"this guy was running down the streat yelling and screaming that 'I want to kill the president of the company'"

What you're doing is editing me - so you can say that I said: "'I want to kill the president"

See how obvious, easy and utterly unethical that is. Course you can't busy yourself with the ethics of it, you've got too much on your hands tryin to desperately grasp at straws for something you think you can argue to make your position look better. It ain't there - even with you editing me. I'll give you a favorite edit that Walter Martin used to use to display the use of collapsing contexts. "judas went out and hanged himself. Go and do ye likewise" And then you leap of the cliff with the falacy that if something is wrong in one instance it is therefore always wrong. A notion any 10th grade debator with any ethics at all could shoot down handily.

[discostu]

Yawn. Can't deal with what you said huh. Too bad so sad. You said it, you said companies selling in America havfe an ethical duty to not undercut the US labor market, that is a silly thing to say. It's even sillier for a former WalMarter to say since you made your living in the undercut industry. That's what you said, and you know that's what you said, that's why you fled from the question so many times.