>Cutting to the chase: --
>
>The purpose of a corporation like Sprint is to make profits for its shareholders.

Let’s make sure everyone realizes that what you have stated above is an opinion, and even if the majority of academics, economists, whatever, agree with this opinion – that is still what it is, an opinion and not a fact. Over time the purpose may well change. Facts on the other hand do not change with time. In my opinion it is not valid to state a corporation’s purpose without also putting that purpose into context. Corporations have been zealots for their recognition as legal entities with the same rights as individuals, one example being the right to free speech. I do not believe that it is right or proper that Corporations should be free to cherry pick – “hey we like freedom of speech, but to hell with corporate governance”. If you choose to limit the scope of a corporation’s purpose to that stated above then that is your right and I respect it.

>Much as some people might wish it so, its purpose is not to be a paragon of ethics.

So you say. Where is your answer to my question about those businesses that operate within the law but have some dubious practices?

>If you don't like that fact, your options are as follows:

What if I actually happen to ‘somewhat like’ the fact, does that preclude the following options? Who says that you get to decide which options are available to me? How can I be sure that your list is complete and accurate? Let’s face it; the following list is entirely your opinion.

>1) Shun it, hoping it will go out of business
>2) Purchase or otherwise garner a controlling interest (e.g. proxy battle). You may then direct the corporation as you see fit
>3) Try to persuade the corporate executive to see things your way
>4) Apply legal pressure within the existing legal framework
>5) Modify the legal framework to make the "undesirable" behaviour illegal or uneconomic
>6) Try to persuade others to partake of 1, 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 along with you to multiply your influence

>What you've shown so far:
>1) Full marks! OTOH, if Sprint does go out of business a lot more people will be out of work.
>2) Unknown. Have you bought any shares and/or attended an AGM?
>3) Unknown. Have you corresponded with the Sprint executive to let them know why you're boycotting them? Or, are they just going to go out of business without ever knowing why?
>4) Unknown. I haven't heard anything about a class-action suit by the "Victims of Sprint". Any plans in the works?
>5) Unknown. If you're not an elected official there's probably not much you can do here. Maybe you could persuade others to elect you.
>
>6) This is the biggie. If you want other people to help you with any of the above, you need to persuade them. It helps a lot if you can offer facts and evidence. Insulting them and/or failing to respect their right to hold a contrary opinion is not persuasive. Evading direct questions is not persuasive.

I particularly like number 2, “Have you bought any shares”, here I am (in the thread title no less) advocating that people sell Sprint, and you are now asking me if I’ve bought any.
Sorry about cherry-picking number 2, I’ve decided that I can be a corporation from time to time, if it suits me and it’s more fun!

>In the final analysis, if you don't care enough to try to do a good job of persuasion, why did you start this thread in the first place?

You are right about my persuasion, this has been lack luster. As far as the reason I started this thread, I’d have thought that was obvious; see the first sentence right at the beginning of the thread. Or how about, because I wanted to, because I am free to do so, because I felt compelled, because if I hadn’t, we wouldn’t be having this exchange, or more to the point because after the Sprint employees it is highly likely to be you, me or the others that are reading these posts.

The point of my argument is that I believe it is impossible to translate technical material between languages without inaccuracies. This becomes more of an issue when volumes become substantial. Further, where the implementation is performed by people whose first language does not match that of the source then this is fertile ground for mistakes. In your opinion this is a bogus argument – I on the other hand have witnessed it with my own eyes. Perhaps you doubt my ability to remember and interpret what I have seen, or my skill in relating it. You appear to also ignore the ‘fact’ that my observations have been echoed by others. Just like your ‘corporate purpose’ no matter the number of people that concur, this will always be an opinion – yet you persist in requesting hard evidence that will somehow turn it into fact.

The thread has digressed into rhetoric about cost savings and the following is conjecture on my part – I believe the fundamental difference in our opinions is that you accept the ‘cost savings’ as simply existing because they do, I on the other hand am more cynical and can only believe they exist because someone / something is being exploited. I do not accept that people in Bangladesh should continue to live in buildings with the street as a sewer, with shorter life expectancy, etc. Sure the well educated people are living in the lap of luxury with all modern conveniences – but please ask yourself; how can their cost of living be so low? We share the same atmosphere, the same Sun – the fallout from Chernobyl made it all the way around the globe. The atmosphere does not stop at customs check points.

What will it take to convince you, that when you have the ‘hard evidence’ it will be too late?