Foxconn, Apple's factory of death

On 6/5/10 12:13 AM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Jun 2, 10:11*am, George Kerby wrote:
On 6/1/10 9:03 PM, in article
2010060119030099097-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"



wrote:
On 2010-06-01 18:39:41 -0700, Rich said:

Me wrote :

On 1/06/2010 4:48 p.m., John McWilliams wrote:
Me wrote:
On 1/06/2010 12:48 p.m., Rich wrote:

Yeah, I remember worthless, paper companies in the 1990's worth
more in the stock market than GE because had high-tech names and
that impressed morons. F--- Apple.

You can't seriously compare Apple, with revenue of ~$40 billion,
income (EBIT) of $11 billion, and profit of ~$8 billion with
tech-bubble startups of the late '90s?

Rich can use his hatred of Apple, compact cameras, plastic and people
unlike him ethnically to make any "comparison" you can think of.

Maybe he shorted the stock at $40....

He might just be an unhappy malcontent needing Prozac...
Oh wait, Prozac only "works" (self-reported) in about 70% of cases.
What he /really/ needs is a new iPhone:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/20...ge_students/in
dex.html "72 percent said that their iPhone made them happier."
Better than Prozac.

72% have IQ's under 95...

...and you know that little fact, how?

Rich is the self-appointed spokesperson for the double-digiters.

Oh yes? Ever had an IQ test?

I don't know how one could get through High School without one.
Affirmative: 117 on the one that I could trace

Or are you one of those retarded liberals who call them "culturally biased"
because certain groups score so terribly low...

Man, you nailed me! How did you know I really am a closet "Obammy Mammy"?

You so smart! I bet you have your first dollar framed...

On 2010-06-04 08:02:55 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:59:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2010-06-03 13:49:27 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:00:29 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

Actually, I am not making fun of him. I seriously believe he needs help.

If you really believe that, then why make things more painful by using
medical terminology to ridicule him in public?

What makes you think I am ridiculing him?

Call it what you want.

I have no intention of evoking "contemptuous laughter at or feelings"
toward anyone. Again, what makes you think that I was laughing at him
or trying to get anyone else to laugh at him?

rid·i·cule
n.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 11:17:36 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2010-06-04 08:02:55 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:59:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2010-06-03 13:49:27 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:00:29 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

Actually, I am not making fun of him. I seriously believe he needs help.

If you really believe that, then why make things more painful by using
medical terminology to ridicule him in public?

What makes you think I am ridiculing him?

Call it what you want.

I have no intention of evoking "contemptuous laughter at or feelings"
toward anyone. Again, what makes you think that I was laughing at him
or trying to get anyone else to laugh at him?

rid·i·cule
n.
Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings
toward a person or thing: "I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it
is not a weapon" (Dorothy Parker).
tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
To expose to ridicule; make fun of.

Since you are asking, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Please consider, though, that it can be hurtful to discuss a person's
medical problems, and especially alleged psychological problems, in a
public forum, whatever your intentions.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On 2010-06-05 21:05:58 +0100, Mike Russell said:

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 11:17:36 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2010-06-04 08:02:55 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:59:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2010-06-03 13:49:27 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:00:29 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

Actually, I am not making fun of him. I seriously believe he needs help.

If you really believe that, then why make things more painful by using
medical terminology to ridicule him in public?

What makes you think I am ridiculing him?

Call it what you want.

I have no intention of evoking "contemptuous laughter at or feelings"
toward anyone. Again, what makes you think that I was laughing at him
or trying to get anyone else to laugh at him?

rid·i·cule
n.
Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings
toward a person or thing: "I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it
is not a weapon" (Dorothy Parker).
tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
To expose to ridicule; make fun of.

Since you are asking, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Please consider, though, that it can be hurtful to discuss a person's
medical problems, and especially alleged psychological problems, in a
public forum, whatever your intentions.

Well said.

The humble teaspoon, a fire extinguisher, and psychology were never
intended to be used as weapons. Unfortunately, they will continue to be
used for adverse purposes.

When someone understands psychology, via either their first formal
training or treatment session, they will be fully informed about what
it is not to be used for.

Psychological terms bandied about in a public forum are scientifically
meaningless yet their implications can be very significant, even to the
point of being fatal.

--
Pete

On 2010-06-05 15:08:03 -0700, Pete said:

On 2010-06-05 21:05:58 +0100, Mike Russell said:

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 11:17:36 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2010-06-04 08:02:55 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:59:27 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2010-06-03 13:49:27 -0700, Mike Russell
said:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:00:29 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

Actually, I am not making fun of him. I seriously believe he needs help.

If you really believe that, then why make things more painful by using
medical terminology to ridicule him in public?

What makes you think I am ridiculing him?

Call it what you want.

I have no intention of evoking "contemptuous laughter at or feelings"
toward anyone. Again, what makes you think that I was laughing at him
or trying to get anyone else to laugh at him?

rid·i·cule
n.
Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings
toward a person or thing: "I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it
is not a weapon" (Dorothy Parker).
tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
To expose to ridicule; make fun of.

Since you are asking, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Please consider, though, that it can be hurtful to discuss a person's
medical problems, and especially alleged psychological problems, in a
public forum, whatever your intentions.

Well said.

The humble teaspoon, a fire extinguisher, and psychology were never
intended to be used as weapons. Unfortunately, they will continue to be
used for adverse purposes.

When someone understands psychology, via either their first formal
training or treatment session, they will be fully informed about what
it is not to be used for.

Psychological terms bandied about in a public forum are scientifically
meaningless yet their implications can be very significant, even to the
point of being fatal.

Deliberately misinterpreting another's intentions in a public forum is
equally harmful. Continuing to do so after having been corrected is
both dishonest and deliberately harmful. You clowns can go around
claiming to know better than I do what I think and believe, but all it
proves is your own towering arrogance.

I am not interested in hurting Rich or using any weapon against him. I
think it is time we encouraged him to get help. Silence and denial will
not help Rich.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 07:21:35 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

Deliberately misinterpreting another's intentions in a public forum is
equally harmful. Continuing to do so after having been corrected is
both dishonest and deliberately harmful. You clowns can go around
claiming to know better than I do what I think and believe, but all it
proves is your own towering arrogance.

I don't question your intentions, and I said so in my previous post.

I am not interested in hurting [name deleted] or using any weapon against him. I
think it is time we encouraged him to get help. Silence and denial will
not help [name deleted].

Silence is extremely appropriate in this case. I will proceed to
demonstrate with you.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com