How does the explanation go against logic?
Being logical would be to beleive this because you have no evidence to the contrary that isnt speculation.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jobs Health Concerns Related to Food Absorption, Not Cancer?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How does the explanation go against logic?
Being logical would be to beleive this because you have no evidence to the contrary that isnt speculation.
Assuming the improbable when the probable exists and fits more naturally the facts at hand is illogical.
While Steve Jobs may be Disney's largest single shareholder with approximately 7% of the company's stock and sits on their board of directors, he has never been in charge of the company.
What is improbable about the explanation given? What is the more probable explanation that contradicts the one given?
Besides, probability does not affect logic. An improbable explanation is just as valid as a more probable one. You can only rule out the impossible.
Because the explanations have changed too many times over the last few months to be seen as completely credible, and because Steve and Apple have a lengthy history of being highly abstruse in their communications about this issue. If they can show us as investors that the statements they have made to date follow a fact-based logic not driven by an effort to deceive us, then I would be very happy to see it. It's important that they do this promptly. I hope they do.
The simple rational explanation for changing explanations is that they didn't, and probably still don't, know the full extent of Jobs' condition. I'm sure his condition and his knowledge of it has changed over time. Remember, we don't have Star-Trek style beds that can explain what's wrong with you just by lying on them. (Rumor: I hear Apple is working on those!
) Thus the explanations would change over time as they learned new information. This latest letter even says that Jobs has found out in the last week that his condition was more complex than he thought. Do you have a reason to think that Jobs and the board have been fully aware of the full extent of his condition for months?You want them to prove they're not doing something...
You want them to prove they're not doing something...
The differences in the explanations of Steve's fitness to run the company from last week to this week are startling, to say the least. You have to notice in his letter of last week, Steve ended with a comment about how he'd already said more than he wanted to say and would say no more. At the time, this strongly suggested to me at best a grudging effort at disclosure. Most of us tried to ignore this, and did until the other shoe dropped.
So yes, I think they need to to explain these inconsistencies promptly, or risk a shareholder lawsuit. Again, I hope they do. A lawsuit would be a messy business and could potentially end up with more disclosure of medical details than anybody really wants or needs.
The "inconsistency" is explained when Jobs says that he found out in the last week that his condition was more complex than he thought. His knowledge changed, so the assessment of his fitness changed.
Last night we did a fun little spoof using our Macbook Pro and iMovie for Steve. It was one of those moments where you just wanted to sing Steve well so here's to a quick recovery for Steve Jobs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alLzMVFJszk
Hope you all enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alLzMVFJszk
Hope you all enjoy!
This explanation is difficult to accept. One week he's fit enough to run the company indefinitely, the next he taking six months off. Maybe it can all be explained. The point I and others are making is that it has not been explained, and Steve's attitude seems to be that he doesn't need to explain. The reality is, he does, because this is an issue of undeniably material interest to investors. A lot of knowledgeable people are saying this now. It's not an original idea of mine.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/634945/
Vacation Time!
Dude he's a CEO he can if he wants too. And of course if it's approved by the board members.
Dude he's a CEO he can if he wants too. And of course if it's approved by the board members.
well maybe im wrong but, i actually believe that steve is doing the right thing. Even putting aside its typical reality distortion field to its clients, he is a good guy-
We all should know that the body doesn't work only with chains and reactions, but the spirit plays an important role too. People can be boring, stress you, waste your time, etc. more than help you in a corporate environment when you sick. So is a good decision to go off for a while, and try to enjoy and revigorate.
Get well, mr jobs.
Given MY experience with medical matters, the explanation is perfectly ordinary. You can either say that Jobs was in denial. Or that the medical treatment wasn't as effective as they thought it was after an examination. BOTH HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
Think you're straining to find an ulterior motive that doesn't exist.
I'm not straining for anything. If you'd read my posts on this subject, I think you'd know that what I am hoping for is a plausible explanation that will be accepted by investors and forestall the filing of a lawsuit over the matter. Apple and Steve have handled this issue poorly from the very start. It's time for them to make it right. That should not be too difficult to accomplish nor overly intrusive on Steve's private life. What will be difficult and intrusive is a lawsuit which could force more disclosure than is strictly necessary, further embarrass the company, and fuel even more speculation.
Seriously? That was on a fifth grade reading level. What part of illogical, or probable don't you understand? Maybe it's the word assume?
And Steve's letter was very specifically written to FIT a specific prejudice. And even at that, it hints that things are worse than they seem. If you were on your deathbed, wouldn't you try and see the glass as half full?
I have to believe that if the outlook really were positive, he would've reinforced that quite boldly. Instead, he seemed to tip toe around the details. And the point of doing that is quite obvious.
