3 ms·
A question.. Several miss spellings were in the posted original RC email at TC..miss spellings that you would think RC would not make. Are we sure that the or
by shareme 16y ago
A question..
Several miss spellings were in the posted original RC email at TC..miss spellings that you would think RC would not make.
Are we sure that the original RC email that TC posted was real and from RC?
Things are just not matching..
But for a group of Super Angles not to know that they cannot
participate in a discussion where they suggest to collude to price fix.. tells me that I should not take any business advice from them..How about rest of HN readers?
- arst 16y agoSeveral miss spellings were in the posted original RC email at TC..miss spellings that you would think RC would not make. What would make you think that?
- brudgers 16y ago> But for a group of Super Angles not to know that they cannot participate in a discussion where they suggest to collude to price fix.. tells me that I should not take any business advice from them Collude if you can get away with it is bad ethical advice. On the other hand it is consistent with the amoral (not to be confused with immoral) standards by which business may be expected to operate. And from a rational economic actor standpoint it makes a lot of sense. That's why the story is plausible. Even if we don't like the implications.
- limedaring 16y agoThe misspellings missing from the second email are easily explained by the likelihood that this email was "proofread" by several people beforehand (since it was known to be going public), whereas the other was a quick personal email with no intention of going public (until it was leaked). I believe pg mentioned that Ron would review the public emails several time with others. Also... the 2nd email, Ron mentioned the first. So the first is real, straight from his mouth.