Quote:
Originally Posted by will76
but you shouldn't agree with me all the time, i am not always right.
When it comes to business I personally think things are more black and white. Either you are a scammer or you not a scammer, either you ripping people off or you not ripping people off. I think most things are cut and dry for business anyway. And I don't mix business with pleasure or friends. I don't put my business credibility on the line to go out on a limb for a bro. But everyone is different.
|
ha ha, I mean in a complete thread, there's always one or two things you add that come from your usual "absolute positions" (aka balck and white). Like your posts in this thread. I really don't think Steve thought he was supporting a scammer or a thieve, he might not thought things well and reacted like most people would, backing a friend. That's part of the whole gamma of grays you're not perceiving.
Furthermore, despite the outcome, I don't think Mallick's intentions were to scam people or steal money or cause all this. But it happened. I knew it from the first statement because there was a HUGE alarm sign: when you sign a banking services contract with VISA, there's a pretty big addendum which consists in all the proper measurements to preserve VISA's brand. If you lie (like they did in the first statement and all the subsequent ones) and to make it worse, you lie about VISA's involvement in the matter, rest assured you'll never, EVER work with them again. Period.
But here's the thing: I know that because I worked for VISA and I worked for banks providing financial services using the VISA brand. And that's why I knew everything was fucked up and the first thing I did was contacting one of the highest VISA authorities in the world. But I'm pretty sure Steve and 99% of the people here didn't know that, and he had as much data as you did, so why wouldn't he back up his friend when he knew his friend did things right previously? That's another shade of gray you aren't perceiving here.
Finally, let me put an example: let's say you have a friend that enters a fight (totally his fault and you know it or at least suspect it) and you see 2 or 3 guys are going to beat him up. Would you help him and find out what happened later, or would you sit sipping your beer? I know I'd stand for my friend, and maybe later beat my friend up because of what he did. But my first reaction, as well as anyone's that has blood in his veins is t stand for the people you care. That's an objective fact about the majority of people, and you can't perceive that either.
Now, let's take the same situation. I see you're sipping your beer while your friend is being beaten and ask you why don't you do something and you answer "because he's in fault". Well, believe me I'd respect you more if you choose to stand up for your friend (even if he's wrong) than if you prove me the moral altitude you have achieved. Quite probably I'd crack a bottle in your head
So in short: he (as well as you) had no real info, he saw his friend attacked by the hordes, he stood up by him. Period. What is so difficult to understand there?