[Bonaparte]

"I am sure you see the difference between free choice and enticing a group of people to take a coordinated action against someone..."

Are the individuals in that group of "enticed" people being forced to do anything against their will? Is not each of those people making a choice for himself? When, for example, somebody actively encourages others to write their legislators in support of a bill, are all those who do so just a bunch of zombies, each surrendering his individual will to another? We're not discussing impressionable young children here.

...for the sole reason of... not liking that person's name. In this case "person" is a company.

Not liking the name? "Heinz" is a perfectly good name. What inspires my free and considered choice to not buy Heinz company products is that: 1) a pack of commies seeking control of the Presidency makes half a billion dollars per year off the company's success, and 2) the company involves itself with the Tides Foundation (and, no, I don't care that Heinz characterizes that involvement as innocuous.)

All this has already been made clear from previous posts, so why the straw man?

[SoothingDave]

the company involves itself with the Tides Foundation

The company does not such thing. The Heinz family foundations do. As many FReepers fail to understand, there is a difference between the two. You do truth and yourself a disservice when you confuse the two.

SD

[TopQuark]

All this has already been made clear from previous posts,

Every word you say indicates that things are very far from clear to you:

TQ: "I am sure you see the difference between free choice and enticing a group of people to take a coordinated action against someone..."

Napoleon: Are the individuals in that group of "enticed" people being forced to do anything against their will?

This assumes that anything that is not forced is moral. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you urge rape of a woman, just because you don't hold a gun to a rapist's head does not make YOUR action moral.

When, for example, somebody actively encourages others to write their legislators in support of a bill,

There is no comparison here. In a democracy, that is what we are supposed to do: advocate our own preferences and let the majority win.

This is different from taking a mob action against people that invest their money just because SOMEONE else is doing what you do not support. There are MILLIONS of people that have invested in Heinz. Teresa Heinz is just one of them. She owns a very minor stake and the COMPANY has nothing to do with her or Kerry. As I said earlier, guilt by association is a patently unAmerican value, and yet this is what you promulgate.

If what you urge is successul, millions of people that have nothing to do with Kerry or your ideas will suffer.

Further, you do not understand how foundations are managed. Whatever foundation you have grievances with has now nothing to do with the Heinz as a company: it is managed entirely separately.

A couple of centuries ago, workers that did not understand the changes brought about by the industrial revolution destroyed the machines, thinking that they were the root of evil. You are doing the same thingh, lacking knowlge of things you fight against. Learn about them first, and then see whether your anger is targeted appropriately.

As of right now, the actions you propose will NOT affect Kerry or Heinz a single bit and WILL affect negatively millions of people that have NOTHING to do with the issue.

That is simply wrong.

I have nothing more to add.