"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:5JSdnWNq-pNfEyvVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:NNqdnRkoRPwwRC7VnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> Microfraud?
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | THE ALLEGATIONS WERE shocking: For years, Microsoft has
>>>> systematically | distorted its profit figures in an effort to
>>>> consistently beat Wall Street | expectations and keep its stock price
>>>> steadily rising. The false reports | would violate SEC regulations, and
>>>> amount to outright fraud.
>>> Well, I would piss my pants laughing if Sweater n Sweaty went down bit
>>> time for fraud. Can't see it happening though. Legal or not, I'm sure
>>> their tracks are well and truly covered.
>>
>> Ya think. Since this happened back in 1995 (that's 13 years ago) if there
>> was any truth to these allegations then it probably would have come out
>> by now.
>>
>> Are you as stupid as Roy and think that he was paid $4 million to "keep
>> his mouth shut" (after he filed the fraud allegations) or was he paid $4
>> million for wrongful termination?
>
> My money says the former.
The former being - "Are you as stupid as Roy and think that he was paid $4
million to "keep his mouth shut" (after he filed the fraud allegations)"
Well, the problem is that once he filed the allegations and the
investigation started whether he keeps his mouth shut or not doesn't matter.
It's not like some shmuck filing a harrassment charge where he can decide to
drop the charges. If he alleged that SEC violations were taking place then
the SEC would investigate this. They don't need his cooperation to
investigate and it's not like he can "change his mind" and say 'Nevermind -
all you investigators can go home now because I don't feel like doing this
anymore.'
It's no different than if an employee of Exxon reported to the Dept. of
Environmental Conservation that the company was dumping chemicals into a pit
behind the refinery. When the investigators show up and he decides to "keep
his mouth shut" it wouldn't matter one bit. The genie is out of the bottle
and the investigators are going to investigate. Once this happens whether or
not this person decides to cooperate ("keep their mouth shut") or not is
inconsequential.
In other words I agree with your response. You /are/ as stupid as Roy
Schestowitz if you think that MS is able to avoid an SEC violation because
an employee decides to keep his mouth shut.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
