Overnight, I've had a chain of very cordial, pleasant email conversations with the very able editor, and writer, of the piece imaged at right. [Important background here.]
It gets all the written details exactly correct. But it blasts a graphic that overwhelms everything -- and sullies the good name of another pharma-chem company. An entirely unrelated one -- one frankly both smaller, and struggling in a way our US Merck is not. In sum, this article implies (completely inaccurately) more materially negative news about the German Merck. All because the graphics people were slipshod -- in their review.
To be fair to Ms. Davis, here -- both of these companies ought to put an end to this confusing nonsense. It hurts BOTH of their brands. And it is completely. . . avoidable. We have been talking about this since 2010 (and the "troubles", they have been on and off since 1919, but much more often "on" -- since 2007), Consider this old post, as but one example::
. . . .Peter Sinnott
So when will the real Merck get the url back?
Yesterday at 11:26am · Likes · 10. . . .
James Hooker
As I understand it, either the two companies must come to some sort of agreement over the URL (one takes ownership, or shared ownership?) or Facebook will prevent the 'Merck' vanity URL from being used at all, forcing each company to create a new URL based on their specific company name (MerckKGaA/MerckCo as examples).
6 hours ago · Likes · 1. . . .
James Hooker
Quite ludicrous in my opinion, seeing as the error was Facebook's, and that the vanity URL was originally registered by the German company.
6 hours ago · Likes · 1. . . .
James Hooker
. . . .also, regarding the fault being placed on Facebook, surely you KNEW the page you requested access to did not belong to your company?
5 hours ago · Likes · 1. . . .
Just silly -- ridiculous that both companies' public shareholders tolerate this sort of avoidable damage, to their respectively generally very good names.
[Segue. . . .] Now, in keeping with my new (contra-intended) masthead -- I must remark that 45's notion of acceptable immigration numbers, and preferred college admissions -- now seem to skew toward. . . whiteness. And likely mostly undeserving whiteness -- in an appeal to the most primitive aspects of his base's nature.
On the lawful immigration front, he would exclude grandparents, as family, and low wage workers, preferring instead to take the jobs (to the extent that ever even really happens) from higher income positions. . . all while now looking into whether there is not ALREADY enough white privilege embedded into the college admission process. It is true that high-scoring Asian-Americans, not white Americans (in the main) are the ones most "disadvantaged" (to the arguable extent that anyone can say they are disadvantaged by the current aspirational diversity goals, in college admissions), i.e., under the current system.
Once again, the primitive in chief traffics in hate as opposed to logic. Me? I think we sons and daghters of immigrants -- I think we "get the job done!" Credit Emma Lazarus (as quoted on the base of the Statue of Liberty) -- and Lin-Manuel Miranda, lyrics to "Hamilton", there.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment