SEC looks into Dell, formally.
Jim Polaski
"November 15 2006: 7:30 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Computer maker Dell Inc. announced Wednesday it would delay
releasing its third-quarter results until later this month, and that it was under a formal
probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Go clikity....
---------
The Windiots here were after Apple from the stock thingy, so what will they say of this?
--
Jim
Steve de Mena
Maybe they would say it has nothing to do with
Apple, so is not relevant?
Steve
Craig Koller
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/15/news/companies/dell/index.htm?source=yahoo_quo
> te
>
>
> "November 15 2006: 7:30 PM EST
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Computer maker Dell Inc. announced Wednesday it
> would delay
> releasing its third-quarter results until later this month, and that it was
> under a formal
> probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission."
>
>
> Go clikity....
> ---------
> The Windiots here were after Apple from the stock thingy, so what will they
> say of this?
Is this more options backdating?
zara
"Jim Polaski" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
news:jpolaski-D3BD6F...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
two wrongs, don't make a right.
Edwin
Perhaps they'll point out that Dell is only being investigated, while
Apple has actually been found guilty of wrong-doing bad enough to
revise their previous financial statements...
Chris Clement
Is Apple actually being investigated by the SEC or is still just an
internal inquiry by independent auditors?
Jim Polaski
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
> > http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/15/news/companies/dell/index.htm?source=yahoo_q
> > uote
> >
> >
> > "November 15 2006: 7:30 PM EST
> >
> > NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Computer maker Dell Inc. announced Wednesday it
> > would delay
> > releasing its third-quarter results until later this month, and that it was
> > under a formal
> > probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission."
> >
> >
> > Go clikity....
> > ---------
> > The Windiots here were after Apple from the stock thingy, so what will they
> > say of this?
>
> Perhaps they'll point out that Dell is only being investigated, while
> Apple has actually been found guilty of wrong-doing bad enough to
> revise their previous financial statements...
Would you like to point out the lawsuit and verdict where Apple was found "guilty"? What
Apple did was and admission based on their own internal investigation, not that it excuses
what happened with the stocks. It doesn't.
--
Jim
Steve de Mena
Good question. I don't think the SEC comments on
investigations.
Edwin
Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <1163693591.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Jim Polaski wrote:
> > > http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/15/news/companies/dell/index.htm?source=yahoo_q
> > > uote
> > >
> > >
> > > "November 15 2006: 7:30 PM EST
> > >
> > > NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Computer maker Dell Inc. announced Wednesday it
> > > would delay
> > > releasing its third-quarter results until later this month, and that it was
> > > under a formal
> > > probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission."
> > >
> > >
> > > Go clikity....
> > > ---------
> > > The Windiots here were after Apple from the stock thingy, so what will they
> > > say of this?
> >
> > Perhaps they'll point out that Dell is only being investigated, while
> > Apple has actually been found guilty of wrong-doing bad enough to
> > revise their previous financial statements...
>
> Would you like to point out the lawsuit and verdict where Apple was found "guilty"?
Apple admitted themselves that they are guilty. They had to throw
out their financial reports and statements going back to 2002 as a
direct result of their admissions of guilt.
> What
> Apple did was and admission based on their own internal investigation, not that it excuses
> what happened with the stocks. It doesn't.
Then you ought to stop trying to excuse Apple by pointing at Dell,
especially when Dell hasn't been charged with any wrong-doing, nor have
they admitted to any.
Edwin
Your answer appears in the first sentence of this post.
Chris Clement
I asked about Apple, not Dell.
Mark Thompson
them...
Whereas what happened yesterday with DeLL is FAR more serious.
It's a "formal" investigation, which means bad news all around.
Stock has dropped 3.3% ouch!
Edwin
Edwin
Mark Thompson wrote:
> Apple isn't guilty, the SEC hasn't even opened an investigation of
> them...
>
> Whereas what happened yesterday with DeLL is FAR more serious.
No it's not.
> It's a "formal" investigation, which means bad news all around.
Only if it finds something. Apple has already confessed its guilt.
Jim Polaski
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Did you friggin read the last sentence I wrote you dunce. I did say that Apple admitting
what happened wasn't acceptable, meaning it was wrong.
You're a lot dumber than thought.
--
Jim
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Where it says that Dell is being investigated? Dell and Apple is the
same?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
> > Apple isn't guilty, the SEC hasn't even opened an investigation of
> > them...
> >
> > Whereas what happened yesterday with DeLL is FAR more serious.
>
> No it's not.
>
> > It's a "formal" investigation, which means bad news all around.
>
> Only if it finds something. Apple has already confessed its guilt.
Without being investigated - which is good karma. "We have made a
mistake" is a lot better than SEC saying "They made a mistake".
--
Sandman[.net]
Jim Polaski
eddie doesn't understand that kind of difference.
--
Jim
Edwin
This isn't the kind of stuff you get to say "oops" about, and walk away
scott free. The officers of a company have an obligation to know the
laws that apply to their company, they can't plead ignorance.
Dell still stands innocent of any of what Apple has confessed to. The
Maccie tactic of excusing Apple by pointing at Dell has fallen flat on
its face - AGAIN!
Edwin
IOW, you changed your name to "eddie." Here's the difference, eddie:
Apple: confessed guilt.
Dell: not shown to be guilty of anything.
Edwin
You addressed that sentence to yourself.
> I did say that Apple admitting
> what happened wasn't acceptable, meaning it was wrong.
That doesn't change the fact you created this thread as an attempt to
absolve Apple by implying that Dell "does it too."
> You're a lot dumber than thought.
I have miles to go before I get anywhere near as dumb as you are,
Jimbob.
Edwin
You're a day late and a dollar short, as usual...
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Without being investigated - which is good karma. "We have made a
> > mistake" is a lot better than SEC saying "They made a mistake".
>
> This isn't the kind of stuff you get to say "oops" about, and walk away
> scott free. The officers of a company have an obligation to know the
> laws that apply to their company, they can't plead ignorance.
Exactly.
> Dell still stands innocent of any of what Apple has confessed to.
Dell is being investigated and Apple is not.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1163780320.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Without being investigated - which is good karma. "We have made a
> > > mistake" is a lot better than SEC saying "They made a mistake".
> >
> > This isn't the kind of stuff you get to say "oops" about, and walk away
> > scott free. The officers of a company have an obligation to know the
> > laws that apply to their company, they can't plead ignorance.
>
> Exactly.
So Apple has confessed their guilt.
> > Dell still stands innocent of any of what Apple has confessed to.
>
> Dell is being investigated and Apple is not.
Apple confessed their guilt, Dell still stands innocent of any charges.
In fact, Dell has yet to even be charged.
Steve Hix
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
This may explain some of Edwin's more persistent problems.
Snit
1163796994....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com on 11/17/06 1:56 PM:
>
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <1163780320.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Without being investigated - which is good karma. "We have made a
>>>> mistake" is a lot better than SEC saying "They made a mistake".
>>>
>>> This isn't the kind of stuff you get to say "oops" about, and walk away
>>> scott free. The officers of a company have an obligation to know the
>>> laws that apply to their company, they can't plead ignorance.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> So Apple has confessed their guilt.
According to some, though, they are not *actually guilty* until or unless
they are *found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law*...
though the moron who claims that only applies it to Bush... so maybe Apple
is exempt from the "Bush defense".
>>> Dell still stands innocent of any of what Apple has confessed to.
>>
>> Dell is being investigated and Apple is not.
>
> Apple confessed their guilt, Dell still stands innocent of any charges.
> In fact, Dell has yet to even be charged.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Edwin
Edwin
It wasn't bad enough Sandman asked about something I already posted a
corrction on, a day late, you had to chime in also?
You seem to have more than a fair share of your own share of problems
to worry about, Steve.
Snit
>>>>>> Without being investigated - which is good karma. "We have made a
>>>>>> mistake" is a lot better than SEC saying "They made a mistake".
>>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't the kind of stuff you get to say "oops" about, and walk away
>>>>> scott free. The officers of a company have an obligation to know the
>>>>> laws that apply to their company, they can't plead ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>> So Apple has confessed their guilt.
>>>
>> According to some, though, they are not *actually guilty* until or unless
>> they are *found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law*... though
>> the moron who claims that only applies it to Bush... so maybe Apple is exempt
>> from the "Bush defense".
>
> Avoid Snit's attempt to hijack the thread.
I am commenting on the topic - even if Apple has admitted to guilt,
according to some in CSMA that is irrelevant (at least for Bush) - the
*only* thing that shows someone is actually guilty - according to these
morons - is to be found guilty in a court of law.
I am curious if people in CSMA accept such stupid defenses for Apple...
clearly at least some do for Bush.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
sehix-E33F5A....@news.isp.giganews.com on 11/17/06 2:13 PM:
>>>>> Perhaps they'll point out that Dell is only being investigated, while
>>>>> Apple has actually been found guilty of wrong-doing bad enough to
>>>>> revise their previous financial statements...
>>>>
>>>> Is Apple actually being investigated by the SEC or is still just an
>>>> internal inquiry by independent auditors?
>>>
>>> Your answer appears in the first sentence of this post.
>>
>> Where it says that Dell is being investigated? Dell and Apple is the
>> same?
>
> This may explain some of Edwin's more persistent problems.
It hardly explains some of Edwin's oddest problems, based on his own quotes:
"I am wrong...
... AGAIN." - Edwin
"why was I born with a coat hanger embedded in my skull?" - Edwin
"I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
"Thank you all for giving me attention... does anybody have
some mouthwash?" - Edwin
"I can stop thinking about having sex with monkeys" - Edwin
Edwin clearly has many, many problems.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> stated in post
> sehix-E33F5A....@news.isp.giganews.com on 11/17/06 2:13 PM:
>
> >>>>> Perhaps they'll point out that Dell is only being investigated, while
> >>>>> Apple has actually been found guilty of wrong-doing bad enough to
> >>>>> revise their previous financial statements...
> >>>>
> >>>> Is Apple actually being investigated by the SEC or is still just an
> >>>> internal inquiry by independent auditors?
> >>>
> >>> Your answer appears in the first sentence of this post.
> >>
> >> Where it says that Dell is being investigated? Dell and Apple is the
> >> same?
> >
> > This may explain some of Edwin's more persistent problems.
>
> It hardly explains some of Edwin's oddest problems, based on his own quotes:
>
> "I am wrong...
> ... AGAIN." - Edwin
>
> "why was I born with a coat hanger embedded in my skull?" - Edwin
>
> "I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
> I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
>
> "Thank you all for giving me attention... does anybody have
> some mouthwash?" - Edwin
>
> "I can stop thinking about having sex with monkeys" - Edwin
>
> Edwin clearly has many, many problems.
Once again you post forgeries to satisfy your sick need for constant
attention.
Snit
>>> This may explain some of Edwin's more persistent problems.
>>
>> It hardly explains some of Edwin's oddest problems, based on his own quotes:
>>
>> "I am wrong...
>> ... AGAIN." - Edwin
>>
>> "why was I born with a coat hanger embedded in my skull?" - Edwin
>>
>> "I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
>> I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
>>
>> "Thank you all for giving me attention... does anybody have
>> some mouthwash?" - Edwin
>>
>> "I can stop thinking about having sex with monkeys" - Edwin
>>
>> Edwin clearly has many, many problems.
>
> Once again you post forgeries to satisfy your sick need for constant
> attention.
LOL! I post what even *you* call your "forgeries" and you whine about how
this says something about me.
Tell you what, Edwin, if you apologize for spewing your sick,
attention-begging forgeries I will stop shoving them in your face. Until
then, Edwin, it is fair game to remind you of your immature and pathetic
behavior.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1163803923.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 11/17/06 3:52 PM:
>
> >>> This may explain some of Edwin's more persistent problems.
> >>
> >> It hardly explains some of Edwin's oddest problems, based on his own quotes:
> >>
> >> "I am wrong...
> >> ... AGAIN." - Edwin
> >>
> >> "why was I born with a coat hanger embedded in my skull?" - Edwin
> >>
> >> "I am just getting hungry or looking for attention:
> >> I eat dog shit to get attention." - Edwin
> >>
> >> "Thank you all for giving me attention... does anybody have
> >> some mouthwash?" - Edwin
> >>
> >> "I can stop thinking about having sex with monkeys" - Edwin
> >>
> >> Edwin clearly has many, many problems.
> >
> > Once again you post forgeries to satisfy your sick need for constant
> > attention.
>
> LOL! I post what even *you* call your "forgeries"
No, you posted forgeries of me. I didn't call them my forgeries.
You know this. You're just after attention because you're sick in the
head, and you don't care what you do to get that attention.
> and you whine about how
> this says something about me.
You're a sick man.
> Tell you what, Edwin, if you apologize for spewing your sick,
> attention-begging forgeries I will stop shoving them in your face. Until
> then, Edwin, it is fair game to remind you of your immature and pathetic
> behavior.
Those are your forgeries, not mine. You're forging quotes from me
again. You're eating dog shit in public again, just to get attention.
Snit
The facts, Edwin, are easy to see:
* You have repeatedly forged quotes and attributed them to me
* Above I gave you the benefit of the doubt that when you referred
to your forgeries you were acknowledging ownership - you, however,
showed you were not showing even that level of honor
* You repeatedly alter subject lines in a way that shows you are
begging for my attention
* Even you note, above, that speaking to you is analogous to
"eating dog shit in public" - and there is some truth to that:
there is no value in speaking to you, as there is no nutritional
value to fecal material, and both eating such material and speaking
to you each leave a bad taste in ones mouth
You can argue against the facts all you wish, Edwin, but you cannot change
them. You and your dishonest and dishonorable troll buddies should learn
that - though I question your capacity to do so.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1163796994....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com on 11/17/06 1:56 PM:
>
> >
> > Sandman wrote:
> >> In article <1163780320.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Without being investigated - which is good karma. "We have made a
> >>>> mistake" is a lot better than SEC saying "They made a mistake".
> >>>
> >>> This isn't the kind of stuff you get to say "oops" about, and walk away
> >>> scott free. The officers of a company have an obligation to know the
> >>> laws that apply to their company, they can't plead ignorance.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> > So Apple has confessed their guilt.
>
> According to some, though, they are not *actually guilty* until or unless
> they are *found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law*...
If the topic is "legal" guilt, this is correct. When assessed by others,
guilty is always arrived at via a 'finding'... always. Of course, there
are people like you who call people guilty even while admitting you have
no proof. Here you are... talking about the evidence you used to 'find'
Bush guilty:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
I've never seen anyone willing to call someone guilty while they are
simultaneously admitting the evidence used to make such a 'finding
contains absolutely no proof at all.
> though the moron who claims that only applies it to Bush... so maybe Apple
> is exempt from the "Bush defense".
What need has Bush for a "defense"? Like anyone else you are free to
opine Bush's guilt based on a faith you hold that has you believing in
that guilt. Currently, that's where Bush's guilt starts and ends.
Here are just a few of your statements about guilt, Bush etc.
"He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him
a war criminal."-Snit
"You have presented a case for the legality of the war in a very clear
and reasoned way, and for that I thank you."-Snit
"I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal."-Snit
"No, I stated my argument stands without refutation. And it does. I
have no interest in arguing legalities specifically"-Snit
"Much like Clinton will never be found guilty of perjury, Bush will
never be found guilty in this case. "-Snit
"Even in the U.S., even in a court room, a lack of proof is not a
refutation." (of an argument alleging guilt) - Snit
"At the very least the legality of the war is murky"-Snit
"While my argument is not proved it is strongly supported. "-Snit
"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
"So far, however, nobody has come up with a refutation of the legal
argument. I would love to hear one. Ed has provided a
faith-based-defense that I just don't think counts."-Snit
The "legal argument" you admitted you have no proof for at all. Why does
Ed's faith based argument not count but yours does? Can you spell
hypocrite? I'll bet you can;)
"Even in the U.S., even in a court room, a lack of proof is not a
refutation. It is a reason to not find someone guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Doubt is not a refutation. It is a reason to not
find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." - Snit
I really like that last one, don't you? ;)
But this one is good, too...
"Below Steve plays more semantic games, where he pretends that "proof"
is the same as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and he shows, again,
that he has extremely poor comprehension skills."
Hint for Snit: When a guilt allegation is on the table "proof" *does*
mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course, you have to run away
from this because, as i showed above... the "proof" (evidence) you used
to 'find' Bush guilty didn't "actually" contain *any* "proof". LOL!
Here's a rather funny exchange about "absolute" statements:. I wrote:
"I think I see the problem... let's try this a different way. Is the
following statement an absolute statement?
Bush is guilty of breaking the law."
You replied to me with:
"What do you mean by an "absolute statement".
If you mean is it absolutely true that Bush is guilty of breaking the
law? Well, it certainly seems as though he is, as shown in my argument,
but I leave open the logical possibility of error."
First... you make the absolute statement that Bush IS guilty and when
your confusion over what constitutes an absolute statement is in full
bloom you change your statement regarding Bush's guilt to:
"it certainly seems as though he is" - Snit
"Seems you are trying to change my claim that Bush is guilty to Bush has
committed an offense" -Snit
"I do not focus on personalities over content." - Snit
Too much comedy... but what could we expect from a guy who wrote:
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from
the records." - Snit
Csma would be pretty dull without you, Snit... keep up the good work;)
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself - Snit
I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 1163798568.6...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 11/17/06 2:22 PM:
>
> >>>>>> Without being investigated - which is good karma. "We have made a
> >>>>>> mistake" is a lot better than SEC saying "They made a mistake".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> This isn't the kind of stuff you get to say "oops" about, and walk away
> >>>>> scott free. The officers of a company have an obligation to know the
> >>>>> laws that apply to their company, they can't plead ignorance.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Exactly.
> >>>>
> >>> So Apple has confessed their guilt.
> >>>
> >> According to some, though, they are not *actually guilty* until or unless
> >> they are *found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law*...
When seen by another, guilt is always a 'finding'... ALWAYS. This is
true in court or out. You seem to be very confused by this fact;)
> >> though
> >> the moron who claims that only applies it to Bush... so maybe Apple is
> >> exempt
> >> from the "Bush defense".
> >
> > Avoid Snit's attempt to hijack the thread.
>
> I am commenting on the topic - even if Apple has admitted to guilt,
> according to some in CSMA that is irrelevant (at least for Bush) - the
> *only* thing that shows someone is actually guilty - according to these
> morons - is to be found guilty in a court of law.
If it is a law being broken for which the guilt is being discussed, a
court of law is the only place where OTHERS can "actually" determine the
guilt. You can opine anything you wish regarding someone's guilt.... but
unless you sit on a jury or in the witness box that opinion has no
weight whatsoever. That's how "law" works in the U.S. You really should
stop posting on this topic, at least, until you begin to learn the
lessons so many have tried to teach you;)
> I am curious if people in CSMA accept such stupid defenses for Apple...
> clearly at least some do for Bush.
What you are calling a "defense" is a basic reality of our system of
jurisprudence that everyone but you seems to grasp. Unless you are in a
court of law, in this country you're aren't necessarily guilty
("actually" or any other way) because someone looked at some pieces of
evidence and called you guilty based on what they think they see... no
matter how much glue they sniffed;)
Sandman
"Snit Jr" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Dell still stands innocent of any of what Apple has confessed to.
> >
> > Dell is being investigated and Apple is not.
>
> Apple confessed their guilt, Dell still stands innocent of any charges.
> In fact, Dell has yet to even be charged.
Dell is being investigates, and Apple is not, Snit Jr.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-51FA34.07...@individual.net on 11/17/06 11:18 PM:
Please stop signing your posts as though you were somehow connected to me -
as though you were even trying to be honest and honorable. There is no
reason to think you are.
Jim Polaski
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Like I said, you're a lot dumber than thought. I absolved Apple from nothing you
delusional twerp. Apple, like many others may have to face some music over the stock
backdating.
Get your head out of your butt, it's a lot easier to read what folks post that way.
--
Jim
Jim Polaski
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
No one said Apple didin't report they backdated some stocks.
What eddie is trying to say from his delusional posturing is that Dell has yet to be found
guilty of any deception in their accounting practices since the investigation by the SEC
is just started and is ongoing. IOW, news at 10!
There eddie, was that so hard?
--
Jim