Wikipedia Sarch Link

Search results

Wednesday, January 2, 2013


This chosen subject matter is the focus of this post for the cause of upholding the standard bearers who hold their focus regardless of the tough economic times because if standards bearers (such as the ethical charitable organizations) do not uphold their cause even in tough times and start accepting donations regardless of the source, as documented in the article from that from daily/weekend Business Publication from April 21, 2009 (A17); then they stand to lose authenticity in their chosen fields of work. If such a path is followed, so too will the credibility of such organizations (assuming there is a concern for their reputations among those in this line of work), and as that old saying goes, when the going got tough, the true nature of those doing “good” was(is) revealed as they walked away from their causes.
Those who chose to accept donations from questionable sources in tough times are demonstrating that their operating standards are no better than hose of a certain Mogul who keeps reinventing his own “brand” or version reality to justify his perpetual wealth-generating schemes to cover-up his own “thin” operating standards and the lives of those trampled upon in his quest “new’ ways of generating revenue regardless of the path or method used. Altering one’s standards in any type of condition is a dangerous precedent and potentially can lead to very serious long-term consequences for those who adopt such courses of action.
The marginal operators welcome those that follow such methods because they are less standard bearers around to hold them accountable for the “real” operating practices used in the name of perpetual wealth generation, (such as using the guise of teaching English in a certain Asian country as a pretext for selling the “brand” to a whole new generation of potential customers (as documented in the April 20, 2009 of this same referenced publication (B1/5). It would be VERY interesting to find out what was the original “vehicle” (or basis) used to “sell” this concept to this Asian nation. If Conservery was so used, then further action is warranted to curtail any future of such by this entity and a return of all such funds raised in this manner (reportedly as much as $1000/student annually, the number of students “taught” English by this entity in not known), because if my Proprietorship was the basis for this Mogul’s foray into offering English in this Asian nation this represents a willful violation of my ownership rights while hiding behind a known con artist to continue his perpetual wealth generating based on stealing of identities/qualifications enacted by a critical lieutenant (reportedly waiting in the wings, “staging” all types of the highly ethical scenarios for, which he gained “fame’’ in order to make his triumphant return to his “rightful place” in this Mogul’s hierarchy, when the dust (is completely neutralized) for having implemented this “standstill” identity switching scam successfully - see the posts WHAT FACTORS ARE THE NEEDED FOR ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL CAN EXIST IN TWO PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES SIMULTANEOUSLY as well as USING THE ALTERNATE VIEW TO “SEE” THE REAL OBJECTIVE OF MERGER COUNTER OFFERS). As confirmed by this outline from the question raised in title, those without standards (even those that hide to implement their actions in stealth) always appear to be winners when standards are eliminated, maybe!  

No comments: