[meteorite-list] -2 arrested update (Dude-- Where's My Caredition)
Meteorites USA
eric at meteoritesusa.com
Fri Apr 3 02:23:49 EDT 2009
Hello all,
Dave, In response to your comment.
-----------------------------
"If you own the property, you have no obligation to explain why you
don't want someone on your property and you sure don't have to justify
or validate any reason if you decide to provide more than a "NO!"
answer. ..I agree that conversation is useful, but can you also see that
pushing the envelope and pressing soneone for a "reason" and not to say
that you would actually do this, but potentially argue the validity of
the "reason" would surely sour any land owner..."
-----------------------------
I agree you should respect the landowners wishes, but should everyone
take the first "NO" for the final answer and walk away out of respect
for their decision and leave it at that? If that were the case half the
businesses in the world would fail. It's not just about respect, this is
a matter of conscience and if it matters to you so much then simply
don't ask the question. To others it isn't as "BIG" an issue to ask
questions of anyone regardless of stature. No disrespect intended. Just
my opinion.
Jason, in response to your comment.
--------------------------------------------
"..If you somehow managed to spend $10,000 on your trip, well - you
would only need to sell 150 grams of material at your price of $65/g to
cover your costs. You've asked some pretty 'off' questions, so here are
a few of my own - how much of your stock have you sold, and how much
money have you made?.."
--------------------------------------------
I would say you are a smart kid and I'm impressed with your enthusiasm.
However I disagree with your ideas on business. It's not just about
simply recovering costs. It's about making a living and growing the
business at the same time. And if I may be so bold and use the word
profit, which seems to be the "bad" word in this whole ethics debate. If
you ever had to live on your own "and" run a business at the same time,
and support a family, mortgage, car payments, groceries, and personal
bills you would understand the importance of being able to not only
cover your bills but your business expenses as well as grow your
company. To grow your business a good profit must be made.
In business to charge the highest price a market will bear is directly
related to supply and demand. If a product is plentiful that products
price is naturally lower than if the product in question were less
available. Even so, if the market will support $100/g for a particular
product that price is a "fair market price". Don't you have an X-Box
360? You remember how high the cost was when they first came out? Around
$500+ if I remember right. Now you can buy them for around $200 a
decrease of 60%.
That's a fair market price and a good example of a market finding a
natural balance right? My point is when a product is first available
that products price regardless of what it is will be determined by
demand and what people are "willing" to pay to get it. How many parents
stood in line at the local Wal-Mart and Best Buy to purchase the first
release of the latest "toy" whether it be an X-Box, PS3, Plasma TV, or
Tickle Me Elmo.
It's reasonable to expect anyone to charge what they feel is a fair
price. It's again is about conscience and perceived fairness. Business
is about profit whether you agree or not. You grow a business by
reinvesting a portion of that profit back into a company, so you need to
have a larger profit to grow a smaller business. Larger companies
needn't have larger profits because they compensate the lower retail
price with buying power that results in lower wholesale costs to them.
Business ethics and meteorite hunting ethics go hand in hand when a
dealer is in the field. He must be respectful of the landowners yet pay
a fair market price. But don't forget he must be able to afford that
price as well. $10/g might be high for someone where $20/g might be a
good price for others.
If the supplier (landowner) believes he or she received a good price and
was treated fairly then that's good for business. If you paid a low
enough price for any given product to in turn sell at a higher price and
make a good profit isn't that good business? I wonder what the margins
were for the X-Box. Costs for businesses are higher at the opening bell.
At the end of the day the free market will find a balance based on
supply and demand.
I ask anyone to fairly and honestly answer this question. If you have
investments in the market (401K etc.) wouldn't you want those
investments to give you the highest return possible? You don't have to
be a businessperson to understand the concept of profit. When investing
in stocks, bonds, CDs, funds, your annual % yield is your profit. If you
have a problem with higher prices don't pay them and wait for the market
to stabilize. It always does.
As for the ethics of hunting on private land. Check local laws. And
never hunt on private land without permission. I believe Mike and Sonny,
and take them at their word the they were unaware they were on private
land, and had they suspected it might be private property I would think
they wouldn't have been there in the first place. If the punishment fits
the crime, then I think a slap on the wrist is needed, but a $2000+ fine
and being banned from the county? I think that was more editorial and
artistic license I think by the paper and strictness by the judge. I
agree something seems a bit fishy as Steve says. It doesn't sound right
or make sense why the punishment was so harsh. I grew up in the south
(Florida not 250+ miles from Augusta) and am familiar with the type of
private roads described. To me it might be natural to think twice before
walking down an unmarked road in that area. But out here in the
southwest it's different. Mike and Sonny didn't do anything that would
warrant such harsh punishment in my opinion.
Hunting on private land is a privilege not a right. Respect the
landowners wishes, work with them and they will work with you. Treat the
landowners fairly and they will most likely reward you with extended
permission. Who knows, you might just make a new friend. I know we did
in West, Texas and would not hesitate to invite many of the people we
met out there over for dinner. We were treated nice by most, and in all
our dealings out there we came away with new friends and had a great
adventure.
On a more personal note since I seem to be typing a book here I want to
say some things and clear the air so to speak. I love meteorites. They
are my passion and I am fortunate enough to be able to make them a part
of my life as my career choice. To be able to make a living doing
something I love is the ultimate reward. The knowledge gained from the
study of meteorites has changed my life. I never would have guessed I
would have fallen in love with meteorites such as I have. Many people
out there in meteorite land don't know me, and I want to say this for
the record. I have a genuine passion and love for meteorites that is
topped only by my love for family. To be able to work in the career
field I am so passionate about is something I am thankful for everyday.
I have met and hunted with some great people in this business. And
whether you agree with my opinions or not I will always treat you fairly
and honestly whether you like it or not. ;)
Regards,
Eric
P.S. I know this is a long email but I feel I'm forgetting to mention
something, I'm sure you'll remind me. I'm tired, it's 11:20 and I'm
going to bed. Nite all...
dave carothers wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I'll briefly reply in the same manner...
>
> In a message dated 4/2/2009 7:05 PM
> MeteorHntr at aol.com writes:
>
> Steve said:
>
> Were they actually burglars, or were they just knocking on her door
> asking
> to use the phone for their broken down car?
>
> I am sure they were probably burglars. But my point is, just because a
> newspaper says something, doesn't make it so. Almost EVERY
> meteorite story ever
> published has minor if not major flaws in them. And these are not
> typically
> stories where a reporter's bias could be blamed for the bad journalism.
> Almost ALL journalism is shotty today. I just don't believe anything
> in print,
> just because it is in print.
>
> Maybe Sonny and Mike are lucky to only have to pay $2,000. Maybe
> they were
> unlucky to have to pay $2,000. Yes, they might have been shot. I
> like and
> respect Sonny and Mike too. I agree, without asking permission, they
> did not
> belong there.
>
>
> *******
> The point I was making about the landowner and the burglers was to
> illustrate that Sonny and Mike (or anyone in a similar position)
> doesn't necessarily know the background or local history of the area
> and what suspicions and fears may be present, hence, my follow-on
> about the possibility of their getting shot. The bottom line is I
> think we all agree that getting permission first in the only way to go.
>
> *******
>
> Steve said:
>
> Thanks for the correction Dave. I think I have only seen the phrase
> "Get
> the hell out of Dodge" in old western movies, usually relating to
> Dodge City,
> Kansas. But arrogant law men are slightly different than judges
> sitting on a
> bench with a stenographer recording every statement. Besides, is
> Hollywood's
> perspective always the way it really happens in life?
>
> Of course, IF Mike and Sonny had already made a plea agreement, or
> simply
> plead guilty (whether they really were guilty or not) throwing
> themselves at
> the mercy of the court, the judge I presume could puff up his chest
> and say
> about anything he wanted.
>
> And, I don't mean to imply that if either of them were arrested again,
> and
> brought before the same judge, that he would not be more strict the
> second time
> around. I don't doubt he would throw the book at them.
>
> My preface was that this story seemed a bit fishy to me, that is all.
>
> Do judges in Georgia run for public election? "Re-elect Judge
> Daniel, he's
> tough on space crime!" might be a good campaign slogan.
>
> *******
>
> I've worked with the law enforcement community for 12 years and while
> the vast majority are there to serve the public interest, there are
> those (police, attorneys, and judges) who abuse their positions to the
> detriment of the public. In my previous post, I guess I was surprised
> by the fact that you appeard to find it "unusual" for such a comment
> to be made by a judge.
>
> *******
>
> Steve said:
>
> Dave, with all due respect to you, I like to engage people in
> conversations.
> Me doing so with that man had nothing to do with me being arrogant. If
> someone has an objection, in sales one learns to flush out those
> objections. If
> you don't know the objections, then how do you overcome them? Often
> times,
> people have very valid objections. Other times, they don't.
>
> Unless a person comes out with their excuse, or if one asks, it is
> hard to
> find out why they object. Granted, people lie. Sometimes they will
> say they
> don't want you to hunt because 23 years ago, a fisherman left a gate
> open and
> some cows got out. But usually that isn't a valid reason for never
> letting
> anyone ever come on their land again.
>
> Yes, of course, with private property, people don't have to have a
> reason.
> But usually they do have a reason. Unless it is brought out, it is
> often
> hard to rationally talk with someone about a solution.
>
> [snip]
>
> *******
>
> I thank you for the detailed explanation, but I still have issue with
> your idea that a land owner would owe you an explanation other than
> "No" when asked to search their property. You state above that
> "Sometimes they will say they don't want you to hunt because 23 years
> ago, a fisherman left a gate open and some cows got out. But usually
> that isn't a valid reason for never letting anyone ever come on their
> land again." That is where the arrogance appears. If someone left a
> gate open 23 or 50 years ago and the property owner doesn't want
> anyone else to EVER come on the property again. So be it. You may not
> like the reason, but who are you to judge the validity of the
> decision? You also state "Often times, people have very valid
> objections. Other times, they don't." I'll say it again... If you
> own the property, you have no obligation to explain why you don't want
> someone on your property and you sure don't have to justify or
> validate any reason if you decide to provide more than a "NO!" answer.
>
> I agree that conversation is useful, but can you also see that pushing
> the envelope and pressing soneone for a "reason" and not to say that
> you would actually do this, but potentially argue the validity of the
> "reason" would surely sour any land owner.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
--
Regards,
Eric Wichman
Meteorites USA
http://www.meteoritesusa.com
904-236-5394
More information about the Meteorite-list
mailing list