What book are you reading now

[revelarts]

I give most individuals and corporations the benefit of the doubt, not EXTREME benefit of the doubt. I do think one needs to look at ALL possible options when accusations are made, especially accusations like this that thus far are light on facts, don't address particular persons making these 'trips' and 'collections' and return of materials-which are not documented.

Sort of related to due process and libel/slander-where does one go to get their reputation back? Has been asked by many individuals and companies.

You should read or listen to the book.
on this line (from memory) the documentation of the lengths Watson took to maintain control of all aspect of the company world wide was amazing. It was a monopoly biz. And Watson kept track of every machine. And often tried to nearly micro manage the German branch from afar, frustrating the German manager who was trying to gain more control. Watson found ways to frustrate that effort on several occasions. He wasn't someone sitting back clueless about where his machines were. IBM was the sole supplier of the cards for the machines, and the maintenance of the machines & of the machines which were LEASED not sold.
So it's extremely unlikely any IBM machines slipped through Watson's fingers.
concerning Watson's support of Hitler or not, the book doesn't really paint a picture of him as a real supporter. But more of a businessman fiercely determined to control his monopoly product, and lease it to anyone willing to pay, despite laws or boarders.
I suspect the IBM employees in Germany, Poland etc where probably like many of the soldiers in the German army, just following orders.

[fj1200]

Why give IBM the extreme benefit of the doubt?

There's a huge hurdle to get over between the Nazis utilized IBM products and the ultimate knowledge of what they used said equipment for.

[Kathianne]

You should read or listen to the book.
on this line (from memory) the documentation of the lengths Watson took to maintain control of all aspect of the company world wide was amazing. It was a monopoly biz. And Watson kept track of every machine. And often tried to nearly micro manage the German branch from afar, frustrating the German manager who was trying to gain more control. Watson found ways to frustrate that effort on several occasions. He wasn't someone sitting back clueless about where his machines were. IBM was the sole supplier of the cards for the machines, and the maintenance of the machines & of the machines which were LEASED not sold.
So it's extremely unlikely any IBM machines slipped through Watson's fingers.
concerning Watson's support of Hitler or not, the book doesn't really paint a picture of him as a real supporter. But more of a businessman fiercely determined to control his monopoly product, and lease it to anyone willing to pay, despite laws or boarders.
I suspect the IBM employees in German, Poland etc where probably like the many of the soldiers in the German army, just following orders.

I suspect that most employees in Germany or Poland or NYC were doing their jobs. Among any of them there were likely Nazis and good people that not only supported the allies and Jews, but may have aided them. Truth is, only one group, one man are being looked at. So, if Watson was actually a Nazi or just sympathizer, that is on him and his god. Actually with how the world culture is today, this push on book may make him a early hero on aiding the genocide, now a good thing for so many.

[revelarts]

There's a huge hurdle to get over between the Nazis utilized IBM products and the ultimate knowledge of what they used said equipment for.

maybe, if you never read the book it may seem so.
But still, im Not sure why it's such a "huge" hurdle even then.
Hitler wasn't very shy about telling people what he wanted to do.
But the book goes into some detail about what was publicly known via the NYtimes, published in NY where Watson was headquartered.
I believe it also points out that Watson knew where the leased machines were, in or near camps. And also that IBM was the sole trainer on the use of the machines, so the purpose was communicated to IBM employees simply to be able to make use of them.
In general, they were leased world wide for census type purposes, but clearly the Germans were doing more.
Watson wasn't the type to sit back and NOT understand why one customer had far more use for his product than others.

[fj1200]

maybe, if you never read the book it may seem so.
But still, im Not sure why it's such a "huge" hurdle even then.
Hitler wasn't very shy about telling people what he wanted to do.
But the book goes into some detail about what was publicly known via the NYtimes, published in NY where Watson was headquartered.
I believe it also points out that Watson knew where the leased machines were, in or near camps. And also that IBM was the sole trainer on the use of the machines, so the purpose was communicated to IBM employees simply to be able to make use of them.
In general, they were leased world wide for census type purposes, but clearly the Germans were doing more.
Watson wasn't the type to sit back and NOT understand why one customer had far more use for his product than others.

The hurdle is benefit of the doubt. There's a difference between selling Germany IBM whatevers in the 30s and the Nazis asking IBM to provide their product because they've got some Jews to exterminate.

And I'm not going to read the book because I don't feel the need to demonize today for what happened yesterday. But everybody has some suing to do these days.

[revelarts]

The hurdle is benefit of the doubt. There's a difference between selling Germany IBM whatevers in the 30s and the Nazis asking IBM to provide their product because they've got some Jews to exterminate.

And I'm not going to read the book because I don't feel the need to demonize today for what happened yesterday. But everybody has some suing to do these days.

If you don't want to read the book fine.
But maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it.

[fj1200]

If you don't want to read the book fine.
But maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it.

This was my point.


My point being there's a time and place. But then I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to threads and purposes. Similar to my position on debating with pictures.

A thread discussing the culpability, or not, of corporations in WWII might be interesting. Rather than, "hey, read the book if you really want to know..." That's the only thing I've been adamant about.

[Kathianne]

If you don't want to read the book fine.
But maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it.

I read. A lot. There's so many more I wish I had time for. I will not allow anyone; not you, not professors, not even close friends; demand I read a book or even try to guilt me into such.

I have recommended many books; here, to friends, to students, to professors. A few times someone has said, 'Thanks, I read and enjoyed/learned something worthwhile.' That's great. OTOH, I'm not offended or think less of someone who doesn't take the suggestion. They might haven't the time or interest and that is ok.

[revelarts]

I read. A lot. There's so many more I wish I had time for. I will not allow anyone; not you, not professors, not even close friends; demand I read a book or even try to guilt me into such.

I have recommended many books; here, to friends, to students, to professors. A few times someone has said, 'Thanks, I read and enjoyed/learned something worthwhile.' That's great. OTOH, I'm not offended or think less of someone who doesn't take the suggestion. They might haven't the time or interest and that is ok.

Show me where i've demanded anyone read a book
or even try to guilt anyone into such.
and I'll apologize.

As a said to FJ
"If you don't want to read the book fine."
It's perfectly OK.
not sure what others assume when i say that, other than it's fine NOT to read anything. (i'm a man, when i say fine, it's just that. no unspoken agenda)

But
as I said to FJ
"maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it."

MAYBE ....a more objective stance on the what the book does or doesn't tend to prove or say.
Is that too much to suggest?
But that can be ignored just as well... it's not a demand, or a guilt trip. Just pointing out my observation and making a suggestion about more objectivity.


This was my point.
A thread discussing the culpability, or not, of corporations in WWII might be interesting. Rather than, "hey, read the book if you really want to know..." That's the only thing I've been adamant about.

"hey, read the book if you really want to know..." MORE.
"hey, read the book if you really want to know MORE about this issue."
Is what I'd say if I was going to say something like that.
Which i don't think i ever said , did I? c'mon.

please folks no need to read the worse into my post.
What i say is too often harsh enough at face value.
give me some benefit of the doubt.

[Kathianne]

Show me where i've demanded anyone read a book
or even try to guilt anyone into such.
and I'll apologize.

As a said to FJ
"If you don't want to read the book fine."
It's perfectly OK.
not sure what others assume when i say that, other than it's fine NOT to read anything. (i'm a man, when i say fine, it's just that. no unspoken agenda)

But
as I said to FJ
"maybe you shouldn't be so adamant that it's painting a false picture in your comments.
Maybe a more objective stance rather than the mildly outraged blind defense of IBM (Big Biz?)... based on NOT reading it."

MAYBE ....a more objective stance on the what the book does or doesn't tend to prove or say.
Is that too much to suggest?
But that can be ignored just as well... it's not a demand, or a guilt trip. Just pointing out my observation and making a suggestion about more objectivity.



"hey, read the book if you really want to know..." MORE.
"hey, read the book if you really want to know MORE about this issue."
Is what I'd say if I was going to say something like that.
Which i don't think i ever said , did I? c'mon.

please folks no need to read the worse into my post.
What i say is too often harsh enough at face value.
give me some benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough, but you seem to imply that without reading, shouldn't comment. Fine, just realize with that stipulation, discussion Impossible from those who choose not.

Haven't read x or y or z? Go to another thread.

[Black Diamond]

I read. A lot. There's so many more I wish I had time for. I will not allow anyone; not you, not professors, not even close friends; demand I read a book or even try to guilt me into such.

I have recommended many books; here, to friends, to students, to professors. A few times someone has said, 'Thanks, I read and enjoyed/learned something worthwhile.' That's great. OTOH, I'm not offended or think less of someone who doesn't take the suggestion. They might haven't the time or interest and that is ok.

Would you say you read a book a week?

[Kathianne]

Would you say you read a book a week?

Usually more.

[Black Diamond]

Usually more.

Kudos how many hours per day?

[Kathianne]

Kudos how many hours per day?

Any downtime at work, waiting to go, time off. I can sit for hours or in a few minutes wait time. Anything I've got decent background in, I read fast, same with anything for pleasure. Technical stuff or numbers a main point, much slower.