Slashdot Mirror
Bible.com Investor Sues Company For Lack Of Profit
The board of Bible.com claims that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than to make money on the domain name, but an angry shareholder disagrees. From the article: "James Solakian filed the lawsuit in Delaware's Chancery Court against the board of Bible.com for breaching their duty by refusing to sell the site or run the company in a profitable way. The lawsuit cites a valuation done by a potential purchaser that estimated bible.com could be worth more than dictionary.com, which recently sold for more than $100 million."
If the company is unprofitable, then buy up a majority of the stock and run it how you want - or sell your own stock and go do something else.
No one is forcing investors to own this company.
Learn about Photography Basics.
So, there is no prophet?
FTFY.
All you need to make a camel pass through a needle's eye is to grind it very finely.
$100 million? I knew that the dollar was devalueing but dropping to such a low level is really scary.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Mr. James Solakian, you are gravely mistaken. The matter of fact is that their duty is to be non-profitable and helpful to people. And considering you are one their board members, you should have followed the path of forgiveness, rather than filing a suite. If someone is breaching their duty, its you!
I don't think they teach "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" to aspiring MBAs these days.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Every once in a while I'll google around for a quote that I know is Biblical, simply because I want the chapter and verse.
bible.cc is one site that comes up in Google when you do that. It has multiple translations and languages even!
Bible.cc has bookstore links and just a few small ads. Bible.com has an interstitial, and comes off as "megachurch Christian" rather than Bible-study oriented.
That they failed to capitalize seems likely; but if every board that failed to capitalize were liable, it'd be a different world, or would it? I've held a number of stocks where there were shareholder class actions, and have always marveled that anybody would want to essentially sue themselves. The only winners are the lawyers. Suits like this are usually just a sign that the company is circling the drain.
There's really "nothing to see here. Move on".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor his website.
Maybe if it was set up with little or no regard for profit (like Wikipedia,) it would have had God's blessing and succeeded?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
1 Corinthians 6:7
Lawsuits among Christians are a no-no in the Bible.
maybe they should start selling indulgences
The Court finds the defendant Jesus Christ guilty of not leveraging your power to make us all rich!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
Chick-fil-a does it - they're not open on Sundays, treat their workers well, environmental stewardship, and other things that are branded "liberal" by the Fox News crowd and yet, they make boat loads of money doing things that others would think would eat into profitability and make one uncompetitive.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Why would anyone agree to buy the domain name for 100 million dollars when there is no clear way of monetizing it or making it a profitable venture? It's so 1997 to think that the normal rules of business do not apply to the internet, because it's a magical place where there is profit for all and every 50$ investment yields a billion dollar return.
Legally companies do have responsibilities to their shareholders. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Shareholders are entirely within their legal rights to sue their companies for failing to make decisions which are likely to make the company profitable.
Maybe you think that on some sort of social level that isn't how it should work. To a lot of uneducated people, investing is paramount to gambling: you invest, you accept the risk, and then you win or lose, and that's it. But in the real world, investing is very different, and plenty of legal responsibility is heaped upon the board of directors to act in the investor's best financial interest.
They do all that with a weirdo name too.
I lived in texas for 3 years and I never went to a chick-fil-a because I thought they were some sort of middle-eastern humus place, selling chick-pea filler.
And I'm sure Mr. Solakian would gladly give 10% of his suit winnings to the Church, right?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I don't understand how and why they need shareholders if they have no plan to be profitable.
did you forget to take your meds?
And yes, the pun about Jesus's grave is fully intended.
Fandroids hate facts.
...your lack of profit disturbing.
So you don't like idle, so then you read idle articles, and then comment, and perform a screen captcha test? Just to say you don't like something you could ignore?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
But their website requires Flash!
:)
Evil!
Environmental stewardship? They use styrofoam cups and disperse ketchup in tiny packets. There's two things off the top of my head that say they don't care about "the environment"
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away...
wouldn't it be "a profit without honor?"
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
It's not "liberal" when an individual or corporation decides to do these things. It's considered "liberal" when the government forces individuals to do these things, or extracts money from individuals and corporations in order to do these things themselves.
Many conservatives participate in a lot of charity, I'm not sure why you consider those two things to be mutually exclusive.
What next- bible.biz?
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
... as brought to you by Supply Side Jesus?
Check your premises.
It's because they have the best chiken sandvich in the entire universe. I want a Chick-fil-a now, damn you, because it's an hour's drive to the nearest one.
I go to the same church as the founder/owner of Chic-fil-a.
Well, If I went to church, I would be going to the same church as him.
Alright, he goes to the same church as my wife.
Happy now?
Sigs are for losers
Surely you could make a fortune from religious-themed porn! Didn't Jesus say something about "take this cup and drink from it?" Was he talking to two girls by chance? And I think most people say something like "Oh My God!" or "Jesus H Christ" when they are first exposed to goatse...
Sue!
What are you smoking? Really? I'm surprised progressives aren't picketing Chick-Fil-A for favoring Christians (except for Seventh-Day Adventists and SD Baptists, of course) by choosing Sunday. I guess a social conservative might complain if the Chick-Fil-A was actually a chain of nudie bars that preferred locations near elementary schools, but other than that most non-leftist people think a company should get to set its own policies as long as they don't break any laws.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
They are also a heavily Christian organization. My ex wife works there and asked me not to tell them about the fact that she cheated on me with her now husband who was a Asst. Manager. She was afraid he would get fired for it.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Admit it: if they dispensed ketchup into paper cups (how would that go over in the drive-thru, BTW), you would complain that they're cutting down old-growth forests. The fact that you are spewing your pedantic drivel over the internet tells me that you probably make compromises in your own life in order to participate in civilization.
I haven't seen a styrofoam cup there, but then I've never bought any hot beverage.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Republican also support everyone paying for what charities they give to. It's called a tax deduction. If the republicans really believe that forcing tax dollar that go to cause is wrong, the would all be repealing tax deductions, and remove all support to religion out of the government.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm a Christian and I certainly wouldn't do that. Now, if the way I heard about it was her boasting how she got the best stuff in the divorce settlement, then I'd have concerns about her ethics.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
They are : Give us your money and do what we say. No different then any other wacky cult.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Apparently, they teach "invest thy money in dubious internet businesses, and then sue them".
Yeah, because they put CRACK in their chicken nuggets. Have you had them? There is certainly SOMETHING highly addicting they add.
"When dealing with a religious s.o.b., Get. It. In. Writing. Can't trust a word he says, not with the Good Lord telling him how to #@$% you on the deal." - William S. Burroughs.
Why is this a for profit corporation? It should be a non profit for Prophet corporation.
most non-leftist people think a company should get to set its own policies as long as they don't break any laws.
That last bit is kind of redundant. EVERYBODY tends to think a company should set it's own policies *as long as they don't break any laws*. The argument usually revolves around just what those laws should entail ;).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Strangely, they also seem to require their employees to say, "Have a blessed day." at the end of each purchase. It smacks of moneychangers in the temple to me, but it is the 2nd best chicken sandwich franchise. I've always wondered if there's a lawsuit waiting to happen there.
What's the best, you ask? A little chain called Big Chick in the dirty south puts them to shame. Amusingly, they require their employees (who are mostly rotund females) to wear shirts featuring the franchise name.
I'm surprised progressives aren't picketing Chick-Fil-A for favoring Christians (except for Seventh-Day Adventists and SD Baptists, of course) by choosing Sunday.
This would have made perfect sense before the days of the five day work week and part-time labor. But those days are long gone and a chick-fil-A employee has no reasonable expectation that he or she will work six days per week.
Obviously, you did not get your BBA / MBA from a strict Christian University, and there are quite a few of those around. They teach that its not a sin to make money, what you focus on is conducting your business in a fair and ethical way, and don't engage in practices that hinder your faith.
In this summery, however, the problem is that the investor is 1) ignorant of what he is investing in, 2) obviously doesn't share their views, and, probably most importantly, 3) is trying to find a way to make money off of something that places like http://www.biblegateway.com/ http://www.e-sword.net/ and others, give away for free. I mean, let's face it, Bible.com isn't exactly a Microsoft, no matter how badly the investor wants to think it is.
In his defense, the chic-fil-as I've been to serve their drinks (cold and hot) in Styrofoam.
Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
Basically, Christian business principals are:
1) don't screw your customer
2)don't sabatage your competition or engage in espionage
3) Don't try to circumvent the law
4) Treat your employees fairly
5) Treat your stockholders fairly
6) Treat your partners fairly
Overall, not a bad business model. You conduct yourself in that fashion, people will respect you, and will give you repeat business.
Wait... so the government saying "You gave some of YOUR HARD-EARNED money away to a group that matches your principles and whose mission you support, so we will take less of your money away in taxes" is somehow... government-sponsorship for religion?
You realize that the tax money the government would collect is NOT 'their' money to begin with, right?
Sounds good for the long run but many of today’s hot businesses only (need to) worry about the next quarterly bonuses.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I'd have concerns about her ethics.
Dude, she's an adulteress. I think that says volumes about her morals AND ethics. You don't reach my age without suffering a lot of pain, and the worst pain I ever suffered was from Evil-X's repeated adultery. Worse than arthritis, worse than a head-on car wreck, worse than getting kicked in the nuts.
Adultery's one of the big ten "thou shalt nots" for a reason.
Free Martian Whores!
The only time I've found myself wanting Chick-fil-a is almost always on a Sunday when I'm running my errands. I guess pagans like me eat at Subway.
Not open on Sundays? That seems like a pretty dumb decision to me. They say they do it so their workers can have a day off, etc., but most workers already have days off; the 9-5 crowd gets weekends off, but others get other days off. In a service industry, you need to serve your customers when they want to be served. For most people who work 9-5 jobs, they go to the malls (the typical location for a Chick-fil-a from what I saw in the South when I lived there) on weekends, because those are the days THEY have off. They certainly don't go to the malls in the middle of the day M-F, because they're at work then. So this place is probably losing a fair bit of business by being closed one of the two main days that most workers have time to go shopping. And the idea of giving workers time off is ridiculous; when you're open 7 days, you don't have the same workers working all 7 days. Some of them have the weekends off, some of them have some of the weekdays off and work weekends, etc. You hire enough workers, and spread out their schedules so that the place is manned all the time, without anyone being overworked. It's not that hard.
There's a lot of dumb mom-n-pop businesses around complaining about slow sales that have bad hours, and their lack of business is their own dumb fault for not being open when the bulk of their customers are free to go shopping. Having a service-oriented business that's only open during banker's hours (M-F 8-5) is a recipe for failure, because no one's going to take a vacation day from work just so they can go shopping at your store.
It can be. It really all depends on what else they decide not to take your hard-earned money for donating to.
Tax break for donating to First Baptist Church of Podunk but not ASPCA or ACLU or a non-religious battered women's shelter or something like that? It may not be promotion of a religion but it certainly smacks of promotion of religion. The distinction between "donate money and we'll take less tax dollars" and "we'll take your tax dollars and donate money" is fairly small.
That said, I suspect the reason the practice has survived as long as it has is because they play it fairly loose in terms of what they consider tax-deductible. I also don't believe it's because they want to, I believe it's because they know if they didn't that they would be smacked down by the courts.
I think it would be hilarious if someone snagged the bible.com domain name during the renewal process. It would have a sense of amusement when someone pays 100mil for a domain name and only rents it for a year.
Yeah, "it can be" - except it ISN'T. If the laws were completely different, murder *could* be legal, too. But it's not, because we don't live in alternate-reality-bizarro-world where up is down, left is right, and the ASPCA and the ACLU and a host of other non-secular charities aren't eligible for tax-deductible status, but religious organizations are.
Publication 78 from the IRS is pretty clear on what criteria qualify donations as tax-deductible, and there is even a search utility so you can make sure your organization of choice is a tax-deductible one.
The list is FAR longer and FAR more comprehensive than "churches", and in fact it absolutely does include the ASPCA, the ACLU, and battered women's shelters of any kind (since one of the qualifying organizations is "A community chest, corporation, trust, fund, or foundation, organized or created in the United States or its possessions, or under the laws of the United States, any state, the District of Columbia or any possession of the United States, and organized and operated exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." Hard to argue that battered womens' shelter wouldn't qualify as being "operated exclusively for charitable" purposes - I don't think there's a womens' shelter out there that would attempt to monetize their clientele, and if they did, I'd submit that it would be absolutely monstrous and inhuman to grant them any sort of 'favored' status under tax law.
So yeah, if the government allowed you a deduction only for "charity to religious organizations," then you'd have a point. Since the deduction is allowed for "charity" - full stop, the point is ridiculous.
Only semantically. There is worlds of difference in the practice & principles implied by those two statements. One describes government encouraging voluntary charity by private individuals, which implies the free exercise of conscience by citizens. The other describes forced 'charity' by the government, put in place by a group of people who will use their fellow citizens to support goals and organizations they might not agree with or value at all. I'd say that the distinction is pretty clear, and hugely important.
The distinction between "donate money and we'll take less tax dollars" and "we'll take your tax dollars and donate money" is fairly small.
Actually, it is highly significant, as it changes who is making the decision about which organization gets the donation.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Amen brother.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I did not mean to appear as though I was going to do that to her, but it was enough of a concern to her to mention it. The thought never occurred to me. As to the divorce, she didn't take anything, I have full custody of both kids, kept the house and car and receive child support. I have moved on and we get along decently, though I will never forgive being hurt by her, I have learned to deal with it. I find it kind of funny actually that her husband is concerned I will steal her back, I guess he hasn't heard that I don't want her back and am happier then when I was with her.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Oh for God's sake! Wait, what?
But there's nothing specifically Christian on that list. I'd be curious to know what exactly, in the mind of those who espouse "Christian business principles," distinguishes those principles from "ethical business principles." Because the words of Christ were not exactly friendly to the whole idea of making money.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I'm not disagreeing with our overall point, but around here (central NC) all the chick-fil-as dispense ALL of their beverages in styrofoam cups.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Sounds like a merger with Hooters is on the cards.
No left turn unstoned.
5.) and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain.
10.) For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.
You can't sell the Gospel. It really is that simple. From time to time, I've witnessed various attempts at selling Christianity, at turning a profit based on something Christian-themed, and it has failed every time. The only successful Christian organizations are those which collect donations and give their materials away for free.
You'd have to be profoundly naive to believe otherwise, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who invested in Bible.com because they thought they were going to make a profit deserves what they get. The Gospel is not a means of getting rich, but rather, of salvation, of enriching all mankind. You can quote legal doctrine to your heart's content, but the shareholder's haven't a prayer of recovering their investment; legal doctrines of the laws of man are meaningless when God gets involved.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
they also FIRE YOUR ASS when they find out you're not a religous nut.
If you read the bible, Jesus points out that business and religion shouldn't be mixed, so the people running bible.com are just being proper Christians!
This is blinging
They treat their workers well as long as they are Christian and not gay. Their environmental stewardship consists of serving food in styrofoam containers long after every other fast food joint cleaned up their act. I wouldn't use them as a shining example of a Christian business.
Funny I thought that liberal meant you wanted to throw of the shackles of church and king and declare the sovereignty of the individual. I guess much has changed since 1848. Back then those that fought for freedom and liberty were called Liberals. One would think that this would be a good thing to be called in America.
Actually, "Christian business principles" and "ethical business principles" are practically one and the same. You are right, there isn't much difference. Sadly, though, just like in all religions, and probably especially in Christianity, many people say they are of said religion without practicing the teachings of said religion.
The point of this news story, however, is that the investor and the site owners seemed to have two very different understandings of what this site was going to be. This wouldn't be the first time this happened. I think the question is, did the operators actually make an agreement or lead the investor to the impression that this was going to make a money making site. Its really hard to make money in a product that others are giving away for free, and doing it quite well.
So what are you spending all your extra cash on?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.