[Web] How many unpaid Genesi employees? | ANN.lu |
Posted on 27-Feb-2004 08:29 GMT by Christian Kemp | 214 comments View flat View list |
In a thread titled "How many unpaid Genesi employees?" on Moo Bunny, Johan Rönnblom posted his story.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
How many unpaid Genesi employees? : Comment 203 of 214 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 02-Mar-2004 21:08 GMT | In reply to Comment 200 (Johan Rönnblom): >About proof: Of course every ANN reader already knows that you have
>your own highly variable definition of proof.
The definition I told you earlier was a cut'n paste from the Swedish online dictionary "Lexin - Svensk-engelskt lexikon" and I do believe there was nothing arbitrary about it.
>It's pretty well
>illustrated when you claim that a thread full of people who have seen
>an ad, while no one has any information showing that Thendic or Genesi
>would be involved in the placing of this ad, constitutes a proof of
>Thendic or Genesi having placed this ad.
Please don't lie about what I've said or not. Here is what I actually said:
"The discussion is a testimony of the ad's existence, ie proof."
That is NOT equal to claiming that it would constitute a proof of Thendic or Genesi having placed this ad. All I ever claimed that it would prove is the existence of the ad, which is enough to put the former Thendic-France (Genesi) "in a bad light". If they really wouldn't want to be associated with such business methods, they would have made that clear to the public as well as asked Google to remove them. As it is now, there is nothing what so ever indicating that they did not put that ad there nor that they were removed on their initiative, which is regardless if they are responsible or not, putting them "in a bad light".
>At the same time, the
>statements of several people who claim not only to have received a
>business card, but also that they kept the card and have it in their
>possession, does not prove that the card was in fact handed out.
Where are those "several" statements? All I've ever seen is your claim for "several" statements from "several" different indivuals. Once more you show that everyone but you have to prove their claims.
>About AInc's lack of denial: When did they deny that Garry Hare handed
>out these business cards, or that he claimed to be CEO?
Amiga Inc. can only speak on Amiga Inc.'s behalf, not Garry Hare's behalf. As far as Amiga Inc. knows, they have never replaced Bill McEwen as their CEO and everyone claiming differently are obviously wrong. I'm sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree.
>Since they didn't, and Garry Hare didn't deny this either, the matter is
>undisputed is we have several people claiming that he did, and no one
>claiming that he did not.
If it's true, it was obviously not something Amiga Inc. was aware of. All they could ever do is keep reassuring people that they have not changed their CEO, which is exactly what they did.
Again, it is much more interesting to know why BBRV felt this need to tell everyone about it while at the same time claiming that it would be "common knowledge". I mean, if it was "common knowledge", why would it have to be announced to the world to begin with? Also, if you would be the new CEO of a company, would you really proclaim it to the world by handing out business cards on a fair that is not even specific to your business? I would say that BBRV was quite aware of the fact that this was not something even Amiga Inc. was aware of, which reduces our options for possible intentions of spreading these "common knowledge" news across every Amiga website without confirming it with an alternative source of information first.
>About smearing: I'm not smearing Hyperion as what I'm saying is true.
Until you are able to prove it, that is.
>However, you don't have to believe me and I'm not in the business of
>trying to prove it at the moment.
Claiming that it is true is the same thing as claiming it to be a fact. By your own reasoning:
"Such an assumption includes the assumption that those "facts" exist, and
you have not proven that they would be facts at all. Until you have, you
should be a bit careful with naming them facts - you can say that XYZ is
your opinion, perhaps."
>About double standards: You are assuming that the lack of payment was
>intentional. This is a pretty stark assumption to make unless you have
>a very good reason for it.
Nope, I've never claimed that Amiga Inc. nor Genesi/Thendic-France would not be paying their employees on purpose. All I'm saying is that they are doing the same thing as they have "indirectly" accused and sued Amiga Inc. for doing. If they could have helped it or not is not the issue here. Ever heard of the expression "treat others as you want others to treat you"? This whole thing is putting Genesi "in a bad light" in the sense that they deserve to be sued for those unpaid salaries. They surely don't deserve the indulgence that you for example is showing them. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|