ExxonMobil is NOT among the following companies who have endorsed the Employment Nondiscrimination Act banning discrimination based on sexual orientation currently before Congress:
Agilent Technologies Inc., Wilmington, DE
AT&T, New York, NY
Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream, South Burlington, VT
Borland International, Scotts Valley, CA
BP, Chicago, IL
Capital One Financial Corp., Falls Church, VA
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., San Francisco
Coors Brewing Co., Golden, CO
Digi-Net Syndication, Tampa, FL
Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY
FleetBoston Financial Corp., Boston, MA
Franklin Research, Boston, MA
General Mills, Minneapolis, MN
Hewlett-Packard Co., Palo Alto, CA
Hill and Knowlton, New York, NY
Honeywell, Moristown, NJ
Imation, Oakdale, MN
Louis Dreyfus Corp., Wilton, CT
MFS Investment Management, Boston, MA
Microsoft, Redmond, WA
Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA
Nike Inc., Beaverton, OR
Pacific Telesis, San Francisco, CA
Prudential Insurance Co., Newark, NJ
Quark, Denver, CO
SGI, Mountain View, CA
Shell Oil Co., Houston, TX
Software Spectrum Inc., Garland, TX
State Street Corp., Boston, MA
The Quaker Oats Company, Chicago, IL
Triarc Beverage Group, White Plains, NY
Wainwright Bank, Boston, MA
Worldspan L.P., Atlanta, GA
Xerox, Stamford, CT
Well, that's one thing I have in common with you: I grow tired of your games.
I made a post and then you responded by arguing something I never said.
I have no idea what your interest is in misrepresenting what I said. Perhaps you just don't like what I write. Perhaps you feel threatened by the boycott of ExxonMobil. Perhaps you give me too much credit by incorrectly suggesting that I've "bashed" XOM so much so you are no longer making as much money with XOM as you used to. Bashed XOM? LOL. Yea, well, I'm glad you think I can beat up a multi-billion dollar company with what I write on a Yahoo message board, but XOM's bruises are self inflicted.
Another failed attempt: Go back to the first sentence I wrote in that post:
Actually, what I said and what you misquoted (dare I say distorted and lied about) is that most people (and here is the direct quote) "associate bashing with physical violence."
You can disagree with me. As I've said numerous times, reasonable people can disagree. That doesn't, in and of itself, make you a liar anymore than me.
You write: "I differ: most people do NOT associate stock bashing with physical violence. For you to think otherwise is at best incredibly naive."
Where did I say "most people do NOT associate (let's add this word to really distort what I said) >>>>>>stock<<<<<< bashing with physical violence." What I said is that most people associate the word bashing with physical violence
Tell me, do you think that XOM feels bashed?
Actually, what I said and what you misquoted (dare I say distorted and lied about) is that most people (and here is the direct quote) "associate bashing with physical violence." That's quite different from your quote of "Your assertion that most people associate bashing with anti-homosexual violence is simply ridiculous."
Regardless of whether directed at gays or anyone else, most people associate bashing with physical violence. You don't. Fortunately, you associate the word with verbal criticism of XOM on a message board. My what a different world we live in.
You want to call me a liar--knock yourself out. I've been called worse. My criticism of your posts has less to do with being off topic than it does with being unnecessarily . . . filled with personal, character attacks. I suppose that's the best you can do since you've shown me so many times how wrong I am (LOL) and I've rejected all of your attempts at distorting my views.
And now back to . . . ExxonMobil.
You write: "infernale did not call you a liar." Really!
So when Infernalequinox says "Since you know by now that statement is false, you have again demonstrated how you lie to express your prejudice against XOM" (as he did in post 66238) he is not accusing me of lying?
How about when he says "No, re XOM, you are posting exactly the same lies" (as he did in post 66400 ) or when he says "a good deal of your post 66231 is an outright lie (as he did in post 66292) or when he says "I guess frustration with your lack of "success" has led you from advocacy to bashing and outright lies" (as he did in post 66292).
While I appreciate that you do not think I'm a liar, I can certainly understand how you think I dodge a discussion if you "don't read your words and evidence sufficiently to make that judgment."
infernale did not call you a liar. But the description of your posts was pretty realistic. You may not be a liar - I don't read your words and evidence sufficiently to make that judgement. You do "excel" in dodging the point of a discussion.
Are we talking about the lower sales, the lower profits or the lower stock price?
Oh, that's right--none of that has anything to do with the success of the boycott. Tell me--has the boycott helped improve >any< of those numbers?