Ralph Nader is suing Microsoft for not paying dividends.

In a letter to [size=4]Microsoft Chairman[/size=4][size=6]BILL GATES...[/size=6] Mr. Nader called micosofts failure to pay dividends "inappropriate"......

(Source: Todays WSJ)

Now, why would I mention this????

Well, it seems Mr. Gates IS the final authority at Microsoft, or at least Ralph Nader thinks so.

And some litle piss ant has been dogging me claiming  Gates is NOT  the final authority at Microsoft for over a week now. He even claimed (as I recall) that Gates is no longer Chairman.

Will his GLARING error silence the little troll???

Nah, cuz then his reason for existence (dogging me) would be over. Pathetic, really....

[}:D]

Giv'em hell gman. [:D]

Well if you were so sure of yourself then you should not have deleted the post.  Again I do not expect you to reply because you are an idiot and a coward.  I never said that Bill Gates was not the Chairman of the Board at Microsoft.  I pointed out that he was no longer CEO at Microsoft and was NOT the final authority.  The letter means NOTHING, the court does and I seriously doubt if they will name Bill Gates in the case.  

I have also heard from one of my friends at Microsoft (I talked to her on Friday and she brought this up) that they are probably going to pay dividends.  

Again if you wish to discuss this in detail I am here.  But you are intellectually inept and a coward so I will not hold my breath for this.

-Velveeta

Hey Goatboy, isn't REPEATING insults against the code of conduct??? Aren't all insults supposed to be original and creative????



BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOL

Actually, Steve Ballmer is now the President/CEO of Microsoft and has been for at least two years which makes him the head of the company. The board has the ability to override/fire/whatever the President, but as a group only, not as individuals so Ballmer is ,technically, the single most powerful man in the company.

Gates reportedly wanted to spend more time programming and engineering products instead of doing the mundane tasks or running one of the most powerful companies in the world.

There you go, slinking back to your liberal roots.  When you cannot compete fairly, especially on an intellectual level launch a lawsuit!

Garandman, why not discuss what you said?  Are you THAT intellectually inept?

-Velveeta

Ponyboy,

Pointing facts out to garandman is non-productive.  He will not/cannot discuss anything in more depth than “look at how smart I am” “I am garandman, I even quote myself”
But when you ask him why he is smart he just runs and hides.

-Velveeta

Well, I'm not going to get involved in an arguement here. I'm just stating some facts and that's it. I don't really know what's been gonig on between you and Garandman, but I figure that's just between you two.

First off if I am such a “piss ant” why do you run and hide from me and not debate the issues? It should be easy for a massive intellect fueled by an even greater ego such as yourself.

Secondly it is a lie (And a very Christian like lie I see according to your actions) that I said that Bill Gates was not the Chairman of Microsoft.  I pointed out (with a link and everything) that he is no longer [B]CEO[/B] and provided a link.  I also disputed that he was the “final authority” at Microsoft, which he is not.  

Actually the Troll, garandman, deleted the entire thread because it showed how ignorant he is, how racist he is and how very un-Christian he is.   Nothing will silence that garandman troll.

When you call other people stupid or pissants and then are unable to discuss topics in an intelligent manner I think THAT is pathetic.

-Velveeta

Yes, but if he was at the time in question, then Bill Gates is the appropriate person to sue.z

Ok Ponyboy - I'll fill you in.  Apparently garandman and *Velveeta got into a dispute in a long religion based thread, and the thread got deleted.  I've never heard garandman admit or deny that he deleted it, so I can't really say that I know what happened to it.

From that day forward, Velveeta has taken it upon himself to chime into [u]a lot[/u] (if not
[u]every[/u] ) thread g-man posts in, and bring up this broken record argument, like none of the members here can recall his incessant whining from yesterday.   This is at least the 2nd time he's done it this morning.  Check him out:


[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=83646[/url]

I imagine 10 years from now, I'll be able to open a new topic started by garandman, and will be able to hear Veleveeta whine about the thread that got deleted back in '02.  His life has obviously been ruined by the experience, as is evidenced by his inability to move on.  It's sad, really.


*edited:  Revision "A" - Velveeta was Ponyboy  [:D]

I think you mean Velveeta…..

Yeah, I can see the problem with me posting to a thread where I was named in the first post.  Got a problem with that a3kid?

When you put yourself up as the high and mighty moral and intellectual authority on EVERYTHING I guess you should act in a moral and intellectually superior way!

You mean bringing that thread up in this thread, which is created, to reference that thread is wrong?  Please elaborate a3kid?

-Velveeta

No the corporation is the appropriate organization to sue.  Even the title of this thread is “Microsoft sued”.  If Bill Gates was ever “the final authority” at Microsoft it was a long, long time ago.


-Velveeta

Does anyone else see the irony in Ralph Nader, champion of socialism, suing Microsoft for not paying out dividends to its capitalist owners?  

If Microsoft did pay dividends, I expect that the biggest beneficiary would be Bill Gates himself.

This is just a thought...Doesn't Nader suing Microsoft make perfect sense...as he tends to believe corporations should be under heavier gov't control???

But i see your point Renamed....Naders action if sucessful WOULD send a huge windfall to capitalists.

BTW - Is Bill gates the majority shareholder of Microsoft? I would imagine he is.

No, Velveeta.  I mean like brining it up all but 2 of your posts in the last seven days like this:

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=83280&page=2[/url]



and this,

[url]
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=83020[/url]



and this,

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=83170[/url]




and this,

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=82997&page=2[/url]



Tired yet, me too but the list goes on.  Like this:

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=83199[/url]



and this,

[url]
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=81696&page=4
[/url]



Still need more?  How 'bout this?

[url]
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=82632[/url]



and this,

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=82700[/url]



and this.

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=81249&page=2[/url]



One should always be sure they really want someone to elaborate before they ask.  It can be terribly embarassing, especially in a public forum.

[edited to add, I can't believe I wasted my 1000th post on you, Richard Cranium.]

Thanks for the "Fake Cheese Greatest Hits, Year in Review" A3kid.....

[}:D]

Let him be. Attacking me is his ONLY joy in life.

[:D]

My posts were topical.  I would have posted them in the thread if garandman had not deleted it.  He called me (and others) stupid and when called out on it tried to take his ball and go home.  If you are going to call people stupid expect to be called on it.  It can be terribly embarrassing.


Stupid is as stupid does.

-Velveeta

At least now you're admitting you're stuck on it, which was the point of my reply to Ponyboy.

How is this an attack?  I was just asking a valid question:



-Velveeta

But you posted this as an example of where I was crossing the line:

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=83646[/url]

Am I not allowed to respond in threads where the thread originator mentions me?   Please God, give me a rules of engagement list.

-Velveeta

This ends right here, right now! If you two want to bitch fight with each other, do it by email, but it's not going to keep getting dragged up on the boards any longer.

-kid bows out gracefully, having proven his point to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills and an IQ over 55.

Gates is the Chairman, and resigned as CEO awhile back, putting Ballamer in his place.

Technially he is NOT the final authority with Microsoft. Microsoft, being a corporation, has the Board of Directors (which Gates may be the head of, but by no means is the only member of), and ultimately the MSFT SHAREHOLDERS to answer to.

Edited to add:

[soapbox]
Just some random bitching...

One thing that really irks me these days is the rampant disregard many corporations have for the community of which they are a member. Monsanto is an excellent example. While the first priority of a business is of course, being profitable, I believe this should not take precedence over being responsible.

The general verdict is that in the eyes of the law, (backed up by several judicial rulings in this last century) corporations are viewed as individuals, and have all the rights as an individual citizen, (arguably WITHOUT the accountability and responsibilities of one). The corporate death penalty has pretty much been rendered useless. What would happen if a cop saw you drove your car recklessly and almost killed several people simply because you were in a hurry and getting to your destination quickly being your highest priority at the time? I'd have a reckless endangerment charge up your ass if I was that cop. The same kind of deal should apply to corporations.

Now, while a leftist progressive would say that it's the govt's job to regulate this and that these laws restricting corporations should be enhanced and enforced, a libertarian would probably say that it's the job of the citizens to catch irresponsible corporate behavior and put pressure on the corporations to change their ways. However, it seems that either the general public today is largely self-absorbed and apathetic, or the news of corporate abuses just isn't reaching them due to a corrupt mainstream media. Which ever it is (and whatever solution there may be, I don't claim to know how to fix this...), the situation in this area is rather sad.

technically, no. Practically, maybe, or at least Ralph nader sems to think so.

With that, i will concede that my microsoft example was technically inaccurate, and poorly choosen, and hope that "some" people will take solace in that, finding room in their hearts to bury the hatchet.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....."

-- John Lennon

robbyd -

re: your rant -

let me say that recent legal rulings have actually minimized the "individual" status of corporations, going after individual officers for corporate actions. Its widely referred to as "piercing the corporate veil."

As such, corporations can BOTH be sued and legally punsihed for their actions, as well as the officers and directors sued and legally punished. In my estimation, there is NOT a lack of fiscal, legal, or moral responsibility by corporations today.

But there is a desire by some people to beleaguer and demonize corporations, which are the driving force of a capitalist system. Largely, these are anti-capitalist types, causing one to wonder if there isn't an agenda at work here.

This is NOT intended to be a reference toward you, or to associate you with any groups or ideologies. Just a caution to be CERTAIN of where you are getting your information, and whether that source is telling you the WHOLE story.

Its just funny how all poor, innocent victims killed on 9-11 were considered evil capitalists the day before.

Think about it.

Gates is the final authority no matter what anybody says.  Sure, there is a board, a different CEO, but Gates himself owns over 51% of the stock of microsoft giving him total control.  He can outvote every other stockholder combined, and also he can fire or order the CEO(Ballmer the dancing monkeyboy) to do what he wants.

Gates also owns majority stock in some other companies, but microsoft is his fortune.

I was trying to ascertain this earlier today.

A review of the most recent  Microsoft Annual report shows 5.3(approx) billion shares authorized and outstanding.

I couldn't find any up to date sources as to how many shares Billy Bob holds.

But your point is valid. If he is majority shareholder, Gates is THE FINAL AUTHORITY at Microsoft, and Ballemr serves at Gates whim.

The world is not that black and white.  There is no “final authority” at Microsoft.  The whole “final authority” concept is a stupid concept.  

If Bill Gates is the “final authority” at Microsoft then he should be able to write himself a check for $15 million dollars with no accountability.  

Can he do this?

-Velveeta