3 ms·

> [citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot it else

by JadeNB 9y ago

> [citation needed]. Seriously, this is one of those things that keeps being repeated, without anyone stopping to go see if it's true before they parrot it elsewhere. It's a safe bet, right? It makes one sound clever, and enough people say it, it's probably true, right? > It's not. I am inclined to believe this rebuttal, but only because I've seen lots of people say it, which is no better a reason than for believing the original statement. Without doubting your statement, I hope I may ask non-snarkily if you have a citation (though I know we're in "proving a negative" territory" here).

mikestew 9y ago
(though I know we're in "proving a negative" territory" here) If it's codified in law, it shouldn't be hard to find. I've looked, I can't find it. Hell, I can't even find the origins of where such a falsehood originated. So, to put it as non-snarkily as I can, I've put more time into the question than those that hold the statement as truth; my obligation is fulfilled. EDIT: and to be clear, because someone always thinks themselves clever by bringing it up, this does not preclude shareholders from kicking the board's collective asses to the street. But that is a long way from "legal obligation".