Re: SJ got the head of the transplant line by being the sickest--CNBC

On Jun 26, 5:03 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ed <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-hh <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Not realistic, since we all know that Jobs is a private and secretive
person.  As such, something that's not legally mandated simply won't
be volunteered.

do you think a reasonable investor might want to know whether a ceo of
a company is in end stage cancer (especially a ceo as closely tied to
a company as jobs) when making investment decisions?  if so, you think
it's legally mandated to report.

And if it were that simple, that would be the end of the story.

it pretty much is.

As such, what you've continued to fail to clearly show how it would be
required, while not in active violation of other applicable
regulations (eg, California).

what part of which specific regulations are you in reference to?

Some or all of the following, from:http://www.oispp.ca.gov/government/library/laws_regs.asp

i read the first two, and it's obvious you didn't actually take a look
at the contents of the links...

Penal Code Section 502

essentially no relevance whatsoever...

California Civil Code Section 56

about health care providers releasing info...

<snip>
IIRC, one of these new California privacys law that took effect on 1
Jan 2009.
Remind me again when it was that Jobs announced his leave of
absence?

again, point me to a specific section of specific legislation that you
think is an issue- you have not successfully done that. and you
obviously not read what you've posted.

<snip>
So is it a "Yes" or a "No"?

if there is a signifigant risk (hanging with narcos in sierra madre,
vs laying on the beach in cancun), ABSOLUTELY.

And for lessor risks that have nevertheless been differentiated by an
authoritative source within the relevant industry....Ed once again
dodges the issue.

no, i didn't dodge anything.

Sorry, but you're going a time-out in the killfile for being as
disingenuous as the WinTrolls.

disingenuous? you're the one who posted a bunch of legislation that
you knew, to paraphrase, 'may or may not be relevant'- what's the
point? to overwhelm with a bunch of links and make it *appear* you
have support for your position?
.

Relevant Pages