[Am-info] Re: "Fool me once ..."

[Marcus de Geus]

In reply to a message from <am-info-request@lists.essential.org> dated
2003-07-10 02:21:01 -0400 (Thu):

[Lots of arguments, including the following from Sujal Shah to John
Urbaniak:]

> I'm willing to be wrong on this if you can show me how.
> For example, if you can answer these questions:
>
> 1) how has Microsoft acted irresponsibly with options?
> 2) how has that behavior been different from Intel, Cisco, Oracle, etc.?
> 3) When you claim Balmer and Gates are "dumping" stock, how much have
> they sold in terms of the total they own?  ....
> 4) What is Microsoft's current raise and bonus policy?

Sujal,

I'll not try to answer these questions in order to prove you wrong (my
interest in the matter of MS stock options being no more than lukewarm), but
what I will try to do is make you see that putting these questions at all,
let alone making your willingness to concede the argument conditional upon
the ability of your opponent to furnish the correct (whatever that may be)
answers, is a bit silly.

Let me explain.

You ask: "How has Microsoft acted irresponsibly with options?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly got the impression that this
question is at the heart of the argument, that it is in fact what the
argument is all about. It's a bit like arguing over the relative merits of
black and white paint and then trying to win the argument by asking your
opponent to come up with the proof that his preferred colour is the better
choice.

You ask: "How has that behavior been different from Intel, Cisco, Oracle,
etc.?"

What other companies (which for all we know may be run by the mafia, or even
the U.S. government) do is totally beside the point. Murdering one's husband
in cold blood doesn't suddenly become acceptable when one's neighbour does
the same thing.

You ask: "When you claim Balmer and Gates are "dumping" stock, how much have
they sold in terms of the total they own?  ...."

Again, this is irrelevant. Gates and Balmer can stop at selling off only a
small percentage of the stock they own and still retire very comfortably on
the proceeds, simply because they own such an astronomical number of them.
Not exercising their right to sell off the (vast) remainder does not make
the act of selling off the (large) number they did any more (or less, for
that matter) acceptable.

You ask: "What is Microsoft's current raise and bonus policy?"

Again, let's try to stick to the issue at hand, which I seem to recall was
about stock options and their use to MS employees. Even if MS offered its
employees annual 100% raises, there still remains the question of the stock
options, which is a different matter altogether. This one's a bit like your
previous question, which confuses the actual and relative effects of an act.
If somebody knowingly passes me a dud $100 bill, the crime is not mitigated
by the fact that I am a millionaire many times over (assuming that to be the
case, which sadly it is not).

In short, stop clouding the issue with irrelevant matter.

Oh, and guys, one more thing: could we please have a little less of the
endless quoting of previous messages? I counted 5 levels of full repeats in
the last digest. Use the delete key. It's what it's there for.

Best regards,

Marcus de Geus
--
marcus@degeus.com
www.degeus.com