News Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread III - L6ckdown

[Mcarcherey]

Okay then, explain exactly how? I have an MBA from Australia's leading business school and am the CEO of an unlisted public company so I think I have a reasonable understanding of what corporate governance entails. Oh and be sure to point out in your answer how being a public company means they are subject to any different treatment than a privately held company when it comes to their rights when it comes to determining who can and can't post on their platform or whether or not they are entitled or even compelled to remove certain content?

and i'm a CA - i advise ppl like you (the bigfooty CEO with an MBA with a Doctor wife lol) on the legislation. you should know the differences between the different types of company's and if you don't you can pay your own accountant for a summary, i'd rather spend my time on chargeable hours.

 

[7577969923]

and i'm a CA - i advise ppl like you (the bigfooty CEO with an MBA with a Doctor wife lol) on the legislation. you should know the differences between the different types of company's and if you don't you can pay your own accountant for a summary, i'd rather spend my time on chargeable hours.

Just as I expected you have NFI. I don't think I have seen you once back up one of your claims with a rational argument and evidence. You are the one that makes these bullshit claims and then when people challenge you out roll the insults, red herrings, and projection.

 

[big_e]

This doesn't look to bad to me. They've really got their skates on.

I still very much doubt we'll be at 80% by Christmas, but we should be well over 60% if we keep cracking at this rate.


View attachment 1195491

Doing my bit - got my first Pfizer this morning.

 

[ArchKing Carey]

I managed to have my second dose of Pfizer last Friday. Very little side effects other than feeling a little bit tired and ended up watching TV on the couch...oh and my phone has better 5g connectivity all of a sudden.

 

[Mcarcherey]

Just as I expected you have NFI. I don't think I have seen you once back up one of your claims with a rational argument and evidence. You are the one that makes these bullshit claims and then when people challenge you out roll the insults, red herrings, and projection.

projection and insults? oh the irony.

no idea where the red herrings are.

you just can't accept that a publicly listed company adhere's to different regulations to private company's, facts are facts. i could say the sky is blue and you'd go red in the face arguing it's light blue. it's a lost cause discussing anything with you because you won't ever change your mind even minutely.

FYI the regulatory differences in publicly listed vs unlisted like company valuations, ownership, financial disclosures, audits etc is black and white but corporate governance isn't (as much as you think the world is - funny how you have such a perspective yet you're a "CEO"), publicly listed companies have a greater number of stakeholders that must be considered when deciding policy, that policy is then subjective, but the stakeholders must be considered. For example an unlisted mining company isn't going to have the same considerations for the environment and native persons as a much larger and more publicised listed company.

 

[Chadwiko]

sorry but you're out of your depth here if we're talking corporations law.

unless the government is a majority shareholder every company is private by your definition. they're publicly listed companies.

This might be the single dumbest post I've ever read on this board, and friends... that is saying something.

 

[7577969923]

projection and insults? oh the irony.

no idea where the red herrings are.

you just can't accept that a publicly listed company adhere's to different regulations to private company's, facts are facts. i could say the sky is blue and you'd go red in the face arguing it's light blue. it's a lost cause discussing anything with you because you won't ever change your mind even minutely.

FYI the regulatory differences in publicly listed vs unlisted like company valuations, ownership, financial disclosures, audits etc is black and white but corporate governance isn't (as much as you think the world is - funny how you have such a perspective yet you're a "CEO"), publicly listed companies have a greater number of stakeholders that must be considered when deciding policy, that policy is then subjective, but the stakeholders must be considered. For example an unlisted mining company isn't going to have the same considerations for the environment and native persons as a much larger and more publicised listed company.

The red herrings come from introducing arguments that have no bearing or relation to the initial topic.

No one has denied that publicly listed companies adhere to different rules than privately held ones but not when it comes to how the first amendment and laws relating to freedom or restrictions on speech apply, especially in the USA. Generally, the laws that are different relate to how they manage themselves not with how they engage in the market and with the public.

There would be absolutely no difference in the laws pertaining to the environment or indigenous persons based on company ownership structure. Whether the company is a private company, partnership, unlisted, or listed public company those laws are all the same. Bigger companies, whether listed or unlisted may make different decisions based on public perception but that is not based on law.

This whole discussion was around whether or not it is appropriate for the social media platforms to be able to police who can and can't post content on their platforms. There is absolutely no difference in how those laws would apply based on the ownership structure of the company. For your argument to be valid you would need to show that Facebook would be subject to a different set of laws for how it conducts itself as a social media platform if Zuckerberg chose to privatise the entity rather than remain publicly listed. That is just not a sustainable argument.

 

[DaveyBoy123]

Didn't last long unfortunately:

A new coronavirus case has been confirmed in Victoria, just hours after the state’s consecutive run of Covid infections appeared to end.

The Department of Health has confirmed an investigation is underway into a new coronavirus case.

A spokeswoman said in a statement: “The Department of Health is investigating a confirmed case and will provide more information shortly.”

 

[Tas]

I'm afraid to scroll back up and read what this fight is about.

 

[Hojuman]

I managed to have my second dose of Pfizer last Friday. Very little side effects other than feeling a little bit tired and ended up watching TV on the couch...oh and my phone has better 5g connectivity all of a sudden.

Mrs. H. got her 2nd Monday. Don't even need a lamp on to read in bed now.
Thanks Bill.

 

[Gasometer]

Second Astra done

Off to the Grand Final I go!

 

[Hojuman]

Second Astra done

Off to the Grand Final I go!

How's the rollout worked up there Gaso ?

 

[giantroo]

Looks like the mystery case is a teacher at Al-Taqwa College.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Mcarcherey]

This might be the single dumbest post I've ever read on this board, and friends... that is saying something.

out and out slander, no rebuttal, no discussion, just pure and lazy slander.

 

[Gasometer]

How's the rollout worked up there Gaso ?

Pretty easy. Set up at the old Showgrounds site near SPC factory. 68 questions before you get in and done in 30 minutes.

 

[Hojuman]

Pretty easy. Set up at the old Showgrounds site near SPC factory. 68 questions before you get in and done in 30 minutes.

Just one site ?

 

[Gasometer]

View attachment 1195902

I have a bad feeling about this

 

[Gasometer]

Just one site ?

I think so. I think the rest are through GPs and tbh I only know one who went to GP and old mate is there every week for some complaint

 

[Mcarcherey]

The red herrings come from introducing arguments that have no bearing or relation to the initial topic.

nope.

No one has denied that publicly listed companies adhere to different rules than privately held ones but not when it comes to how the first amendment and laws relating to freedom or restrictions on speech apply, especially in the USA. Generally, the laws that are different relate to how they manage themselves not with how they engage in the market and with the public.

There would be absolutely no difference in the laws pertaining to the environment or indigenous persons based on company ownership structure. Whether the company is a private company, partnership, unlisted, or listed public company those laws are all the same. Bigger companies, whether listed or unlisted may make different decisions based on public perception but that is not based on law.

1. the environment example was just that, an example
2. i never said it was law, i said the corporate governance and social responsibility has to consider these stakeholders more significantly if they're publicly listed - and like i said this is subjective.

like almost every post in this thread, it's not black and white. i never made a comment indicating this, i've been saying that they're publicly listed and have a more significant corporate social responsibility.

....and the fact that everyone repeatedly says that "it's a private company" when according to their own (and your own) definition every company is a private company.

 

[rickety]

View attachment 1195902

Isn't that the same joint that berrked out last year?

 

[giantroo]

Isn't that the same joint that berrked out last year?

Yep.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Shinboner1]

Hope these teachers aren't making sneaky trips upto sydney and bringing back corvid with them.

 

[Ligma]

I'm afraid to scroll back up and read what this fight is about.

I read one reply with no context and fell asleep soooo