[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.

[Bonaparte]

Let me see if I understand what you're saying here, TQ...

If a suggestion is floated to others that boycott of a business and its products might be a good idea, and others agree, that's immoral? You would equate a consumer choice like that with a crime like rape?

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

Happens all the time. Lazy shareholders who pay no attention to anything but the bottom line, fail to notice little things like unfavorable publicity. Back when another company thought it was a good idea to have a gun-grabber like Rosie O'Donnell as a spokesperson, we boycotted them, too. As their profits suffered, they got rid of Rosie. Were there investors and employees who got hurt by that? Most likely there were. But that's how the market works. No business, investor or employee is guaranteed a smooth, uneventful ride. Is that "unfair"? Of course it is. Just like life.

Consider the Boston Tea Party, TQ. Now that was illegal. But the colonists' boycott of British goods like tea was not illegal, and from the American point of view, it was the only way to fight those oppressive taxes. In the process, the East India Company, along with its investors and employees were hurt. In three short years, profits from lost sales in the colonies fell ~75%. John Adams, who encouraged the boycott, thought this was a terrific development -- in spite of the fact that the East India Company did not enact those taxes. Parliament did. Do you consider Adams "immoral" too?

"Whatever foundation you have grievances with has now nothing to do with the Heinz as a company: it is managed entirely separately.

Fair enough. The various foundations Teresa Heinz is involved with are not managed by the Heinz Company and are separate entities. No question.

But let's take a closer look at what the Heinz Company supports and promotes.

At the official HJ Heinz website, the company devotes a page to the HJ Heinz Company Foundation. While clearly stating that the foundation is a separate entity from the Heinz company, Heinz nonetheless promotes it, links to it and encourages its readers to apply to it for grants. Just one of the dubious "causes" supported by the foundation is abortion:

"...We endorse the health care and educational activities of Planned Parenthood, which we believe are supportive in strengthening the loving relationship of parents and their children."

S. Donald Wiley, Trustee
H.J. Heinz Company Foundation

There are more than a few people at this forum who would boycott Heinz for that alone. Add in all the other leftist causes bankrolled by this foundation that the HJ Heinz Company actively supports and promotes, and it's almost required that any conscientious conservative boycott Heinz.

But the only reason I need is that Teresa Heinz & Crew pull in a cool half billion dollars a year from Heinz profits.

You may now return to smearing those of us who have a different viewpoint than yours, as an un-American mob, morally equivalent to rapists.