I agree with what you're saying and as I said I'm glad all involved managed to move on. When you're a public figure because you are a trend-setter, and very rich and famous as he was, you also need to hire a PR firm to assist in crafting complete and sincere apology for the wrongs you do in your life. Alas, this he never did. Still you should let go of when he actually recognized his daughter, as it is a minor issue. Her mother was his high-school sweetheart and he let them both seriously down, and even if it was for only two years (it wasn't), that's still pitiful, again considering he himself was adopted. If he wants others to simpathize with his reasons for his shortcomeings, he should be a man and apologize. Too late now, I guess... Cheers, - jahman.

Interesting read from a specialist on pancreatic cancer that indicates Steve Jobs' decision making regarding his disease may have actually contributed to his death. Sad if true. http://rt.com/usa/news/steve-jobs-cancer-dead-883/ Mark.

I agree with what you're saying and as I said I'm glad all involved managed to move on. When you're a public figure because you are a trend-setter, and very rich and famous as he was, you also need to hire a PR firm to assist in crafting complete and sincere apology for the wrongs you do in your life. Alas, this he never did. Still you should let go of when he actually recognized his daughter, as it is a minor issue. Her mother was his high-school sweetheart and he let them both seriously down, and even if it was for only two years (it wasn't), that's still pitiful, again considering he himself was adopted. If he wants others to simpathize with his reasons for his shortcomeings, he should be a man and apologize. Too late now, I guess... Cheers, - jahman.

Jahman, where do you get this information? I got mine from that Wikipedia page and one or two newsarticles that basically said the same things. You are stating things that I for the life of me have no idea how you got to know them... In the same vain, what makes you think he never apologized? Steve Jobs has always been an intesenly private man, we know hardly anything about his private life. How do you know he didn't apologize to Lisa and her mother? And I don't understand why a PR firm should even get into this. It's a personal matter, and if anything, he should walk up to their face and say "I'm sorry, I've been an idiot and a terrible father". How can a PR firm help with that? Mark: I'm quite sure he basically killed himself by using alternative medicine. Cancer is a purely physical thing and I don't see how alternative medicine can ever help healing a physical thing like that. Usually alternative medicine helps by calming the patient and maybe alleviating certain symptoms, but I hardly ever hear that it actually heals people. The problem usually remains, but is made less problematic. Apparently, it has helped for chronic diseases, but physical problems are almost never cured. Caner, which is a genetic problem in the body, resulting in the body working against itself, seems like something so hugely out of the domain of alternative medicine, that I can't justify any reason to go that way to cure cancer. For all his intelligence, I have no idea how he came up with this plan. Instead of going to a doctor immediately, he visited alternative medicine cliniques for a prolonged amount of time. He might still be alive had he gone to th hospital...

Steve Jobs, like many exceptional people had a few character flaws in other areas.Besides denying his paternity, he made billions, but there's little evidence he made any significant charitable contributions. It just makes him human.Greatness doesn't mean perfection.Regards.Ernie.

...In the same vain, what makes you think he never apologized?

There is no public record of his aplogoy, because he never apologized publicly.

Steve Jobs has always been an intesenly private man, we know hardly anything about his private life.

When you become a leader in business and you profit from your large following, you just kiss your privacy goodbye. That's how the World works. Accept that and move on. Plus, If you behave like a jerk in certain areas of your private life, you would also do all you can to keep your private life private.

How do you know he didn't apologize to Lisa and her mother?

I have no idea (and I don't care because that's their problem).

And I don't understand why a PR firm should even get into this. It's a personal matter, and if anything, he should walk up to their face and say "I'm sorry, I've been an idiot and a terrible father". How can a PR firm help with that?

You are confused: There is a private aspect and a public aspect to what Stevo did, and PR firms, as in "public relations" firms, obviously only deal with the public aspects. And PR firms don't "get into" things, they are hired by their client. But like you, there's lots of folks out there that don't care if leaders lack integrity, but thanks to information flow there's ever more folks who do (and the World is becoming a better place for it.)

Steve Jobs, like many exceptional people had a few character flaws in other areas. Besides denying his paternity, he made billions, but there's little evidence he made any significant charitable contributions. It just makes him human. Greatness doesn't mean perfection. Regards.Ernie.

Occam's Razor: Maybe he just wasn't that great... And not ever making charitable contributions doesn't make him human, it just makes him stingy. It's almost creepy to have so much money and not use even a bit of it to help others. This shows a lack of empathy in line with having let his daughter and her mother go on welfare. Come to think of it, charitable contributions are exactly the kind of behaviour that makes us human... Cheers, - jahman.

Jahman, maybe you just read over it, so I'm gonna ask again: where do you get your info on Steve Jobs' and Lisa? As for the apology, I don't see why he should publicly apologize for anything. If there's something he did in public that was bad that I don't know of, then that's bad of him, but if you are talking about the Lisa case, I don't see why a public apology is needed. It's not our business what he did, it's not us whome he insulted and left out in the cold and therefor I don't see why he needs to apologize to us. He should apologize to Lisa and her mother for they are the ones, as you say, whome he insulted and left out in the cold. If he did that (which we don't know), then I don't see the problem. In that case, he did what he did, and I don't need an apology for what he did to them. Ernie: I agree. Though he could have given to charity, he didn't. Seeing as how rich he was, a part of me does find it greedy. In all honsty, there is something to say for his attitude though. I myself don't give money to charities that easily anymore, unless I know for sure that the money is going to be spent well (and convincing me of that is difficult!). As for why I am so careful about giving money to charities, here's why: Just a few years ago here in Holland, it became apparent that multiple charities actually had used large sums to "reward" their board of directors. Now there's a law that forbids charities hanging on to their money for more than three or four months. So every contribution has to be spent within a certain amount of money. Don't you think that such a measure should actually not be necessary? I guess where there is a board of directors, there is money, and the money doesn't always go the way it should go. Suffice to say that this whole affair brought a huge dent in the image of charities here in Holland, and people tend to give less now. Because of such things, I can understand Steve not giving to charities, however greedy it of course is. Oh, and have you heard about the strange concortium in which Oxfam is involved? Terribly shameful, I must say... And what about the millions that were donated for helping the victims of the Tsunami in Indonesia several years ago? For as far as I know, 50% or so remains unspent, and probably was used in ways which we'd rather not have. As for me? I plan to go to Kenya for three months this summer to help out at the Colobus Trust, which is a center for the rescue and conservation of primarily the Colobus monkey (one of the many species that probably will get extinct sometime soon), but in reality they help every animal they can help. They also teach the local population, bringing conservation to their attention and battling the continued disruption of the animals' habitats. I prefer this type of charity: actually going some place and doing something, preferably if it helps both humans and animals. To say Stevenever helped anybody is not true. I read an article about how he met a woman on the street of which it was clear she was treated for cancer. Steve immediately offered to pay for her treatments, knowing what it is to get treated for cancer. See, again we have an episode of his life that we don't know about, and it could well be that this is the sort of charity he spent his money on. Problem is, we don't know. He was always a rather private man (yes he was. it did take months for it to get known that he was diagnosed with cancer. I first learned about it, together with most of the world, when he stated this before the board of directors of his own company). I wouldn't be surprised at all if Steve did good, "charitable" things, but we simply don't know or he might even have asked for donations to be kept private. As I see it, like Ernie, he was only human. Too scared to be a father perhaps, too greedy or mistrusting to give to big charities. That maybe makes him weak, but it sure is human. I will save you my opinion on humankind and the way it treats his habitat, but it's one of the reasons I'm going to Kenya. I must say that studying biology and looking at the world as a biologist, has radically changed my opinion on the world and the humans living in it, including my own doings... Even though you and I, jahman, seem to disagree on so many things regarding Steve, and I guess society as a whole, I still want to thank you, for I find it a deeply interesting discussion. And no, I don't mean that in a cynical or sarcastic way.

...It's not our business what he did, it's not us whome he insulted and left out in the cold and therefor I don't see why he needs to apologize to us. He should apologize to Lisa and her mother for they are the ones, as you say, whome he insulted and left out in the cold. If he did that (which we don't know), then I don't see the problem. In that case, he did what he did, and I don't need an apology for what he did to them.

OK, so you're in the group of folks who don't care who makes the products they want, what kind of a person that is, or how the product is made, as long as they get to buy the product they want. So it's OK to be a fan of a rock group where the band leader is a wife beater (hey, he beats her, not me!) or buy tuna that is fished with nets that drown dolphins (hey, its the dolphins drowning, not me!) and of course the latest and greatest smartphone manufactured by exploiting children is no problem either (hey, its them kids that have to do the work, not me!). Some folks have empathy and others don't. At this point we seem to be repeating our arguments, so it's time to accept we are on opposite sides of the fence and leave it at that. Cheers, - jahman.

Huh? How did you ever get that out of my words... I suggest you first read very closely what it is I said (and read the entire post), and you'll see that your interpetation is way off... Anyway, PM sent. Sure hope you will actually respond to it - in a PM! Mighty curious to your explanation...

Maybe you need some time off to reflect on what you're saying:

Huh? How did you ever get that out of my words...

Again:

...I don't see why a public apology is needed. It's not our business what he did, it's not us whome he insulted and left out in the cold and therefor I don't see why he needs to apologize to us....he did what he did, and I don't need an apology for what he did to them....

Anyone i'd think would agree that you're not showing any empathy towards his daughter, because you state (twice) you don't need an apology from him (implying he'll continue to be your hero and you will continue to buy his products.) Or perhaps I'm wrong and he is no longer your hero and you will no longer purchase Apple products (moot point now that he's dead, really.)

So tell me, did you entirely miss the point of the post, or are you taking out bits and pieces of sentences and fabricating your own sentence in your mind? With such a wild accusation out of the blue, it isn't quite the time to just accept and leave it at that before you explained why you accuse me of such a thing.

No, I don't think I missed the point of your post at all. Rather, I am pointing out you have a blind spot in your empathy, and that is getting you upset. But the questions remains:

1. Do you or do you not care about the lifestyle of the persons and the implications of the manufacturing processes behind the products you buy?
2. And if yes, why do you exclude Steve Jobs?

Fairly simple, really.

Anyway, PM sent. Sure hope you will actually respond to it - in a PM! Mighty curious to your explanation...

Thanks, but I'd rather keep the conversation public because others might also benefit from this exchange. Cheers, - jahman.

I think I'm starting to understand what upset you. I think the problem is two-fold: a grammatical issue that was simply misinterpreted, as well as a difference in the way both of us think (Not in our opinions!). Please, bear with me here while we go through this. I know it's another really long post, and I sincerely hope you read all of it, and answer all of the questions while reading it. I personally would like to get this resolved, since I (as well as you) can learn from it for the future. Let me explain in probably the most nuanced way I can currently think of: My principle: I have always been brought up with the notion that one apologizes towards the party or parties that one has wronged, maltreated or insulted. I have always seen that as a simple case of having manners, and as the right thing to do. Is this principle faulty or not, would you say? The issue: Now, did Steve Jobs, by leaving his daughter and mother in the cold, wrong the public or them ("them" being Lisa and her mother). I think he wronged them. So, by following the above principle, he should apologize to Lisa and her mother, since they are the ones he treated so unjustly, crudely and without thinking. This is all a purely factual representation of the situation, no feelings involved yet. Keeping in mind the factual nature of my description; up to this point, do you still agree with me? Problem 1: grammatical misinterpretation Now, as I said, I think that one of things that set you off is a grammatical issue that actually has a huge impact on how you interpret what I said. The difference in interpretation is what I wrote above: the issue to whom Steve should apologize. The grammatical issue, maybe even a mistake in my phrasing in the original post (I'm not a native speaker), is all about the following sentence, and in fact, the two bold words: I don't need an apology from Steve. I made "from Steve" bold for a reason, since "from Steve" can go two ways:a. The apology from Steve can be directed towards Lisa and her mother;b. The apology from Steve can be directed towards the public, meaning you and me, including Lisa and her mother. When I said that "I don't need an apology from Steve", here's what I meant: 1. I don't need Steve to apologize to the public (being you and me). However, I do want him to apologize personally to Lisa and her mother, for what he did to them is terrible.. I think you interpreted it this way: 2. I don't need Steve to apologize at all to anybody, not even to Lisa and her mother Both are legitimate interpretations for "I don't need an apology from Steve", but the difference in meaning couldn't have been bigger. Why do I think you took the second interpretation? Otherwise, you would have no reason to say this:

Anyone i'd think would agree that you're not showing any empathy towards his daughter, because you state (twice) you don't need an apology from him (implying he'll continue to be your hero and you will continue to buy his products.)

What you say there implies that you think that I do not need him to apologize to his daughter, for why else would you accuse me of not having empathy towards her? This would all be according to interpretation 2. And I agree: if this is what I meant, I indeed would have no empathy for the daughter and the mother, and I would be a jerk and a ######. However, interpretation 2 is not the interpretation that I was thinking of. Instead, I have been in the frame of mind of interpretation 1 during the entire discussion. When you put interpretation 1 in that sentence I quoted of you, there would be no reason to accuse me of having no empathy towards the daughter. Why would there be no reason for this accusation? Because I do want him to apologize to Lisa and her mother, and I do acknowledge that he behaved terribly against both of them. Problem 2: ways of thinking Now we hit a second critical point: my way of thinking seems to be completely different than yours. I am and always have been a very analytical thinker. My factual representations are probably interpreted by you as "coldness" or lack of empathy. During the entirety of the discussion, I have only been stating facts. So when I said "he doesn't need to apologize to us, for he didn't wrong us", you seem to think I mean: "It's not our problem, let them deal with it themselves". This is, however, not at all what I meant. What I say here is a purely factual portrayal of the status quo, based on the logic of the principle I nuanced in the second paragraph ("you apologize to the ones you wronged, maltreated or insulted"), while your interpretation introduces a feeling: empathy. That's exactly what I was trying to avoid. In the factual representation of affairs, the ones that were wronged are Lisa and her mother, not the public. As such, apologizing via a PR firm publicly doesn't seem to me like what he should do; instead he should apologize personally to Lisa and her mother, and if they want Steve to do that, he can issue a public statement afterwards. This is the point I have been, indeed, disputing all along: I have not been disputing whether not to apologize to Lisa and her mother (it seems obvious that he has to); I have been disputing whether or not to apologize via a public statement. In all of this, empathy doesn't even come in, since I'm talking all the time about facts. This doesn't mean of course that I do not feel any empathy towards Lisa and her mother; I do feel it, but when dealing with the facts, feeling empathy or not doesn't seem really relevant. I know this probably sounds harsh and inhumane, but truth be told, it's often the easiest and most reliable way to settle problems. Related questions I think your questions are now easily answered:1. I do care, but I rarely know of the producers I buy from in what conditions their products are made, nor do I really know about the lifestyle of the people I buy from. I tend to have a very analytical approach to these things, abiding by rules such as "not guilty until proven otherwise". In many cases regarding working conditions of employees, there is no definitive proof, just rumors. Show me proof, and I'll say "you were right", and I'll go buy from a different vendor. Until that time, I do not have a reason to buy from a different vendor however. Does that sound harsh? 2. Steve Jobs was the guy heading Apple, nothing more, nothing less. As such, I do not exclude Steve Jobs from anything, since in general he doesn't interest me that much. I think your question should have been "why do I exclude Apple". You have to understand that unlike you, I didn't know about Lisa at all. Also the trouble with Foxconn is something I and most of the world, by the way, were unaware of until a few years ago. You may now ask "why didn't you bother to find out", which is a valid question. Problem is though, how can I try to find out about something, of which I don't know it even exists? Had I heard rumors, I probably would have googled Lisa and see what's it all about. I couldn't do that however, since I didn't know of her existence, and no, I never googled Steve Jobs either because he doesn't interest me so much that I would do that. So, no, he is not my "hero", and it pains me a bit that you keep assuming that he is. As for Foxconn, that is indeed bad, and it did make me hesitant of buying Apple's stuff. However, In the months following the Foxconn affair, reports came out that Apple was trying to make the working conditions of people better and that they sort of succeeded. You also mention some specific examples in a previous post:- I rarely eat tuna. I do so when I get it offered (the fish is already dead, so might as well eat it), or when I know for sure that it comes from a tuna farm. Fun fact: did you know it's actually mostly shark that get caught in these nets, and that it's not only when fishing for tuna that this happens? Actually, some shark species are getting extinct because of these fishing practices. Fortunately, researchers are trying to come up with ways to deter sharks from the nets. They use nifty electrosensitive compounds that give off a strong negative current (I think that was it) when a shark comes close by. The shark is startled and swims away promptly. - The bands you refer to are probably metal bands. No band that I listened to did that for as far as I know, and nowadays I mostly listen to movie and game soundtracks and classical music (or don't you want me to listen to Wagner because he was a fierce anti-semitist?) - Do you refer to Apple? If so, then I outlined my opinion on this matter already. Getting back to the interpretations I nuanced earlier, I'd have to say that the three above issues you bring up again are examples of how you misinterpreted what I meant with "an apology from Steve". As I hope to have made clear adequately by now, I never meant to say (and for as far as I know, I never actually said) that I do not care for what happens to others as long as it doesn't happen to me. I think I understand now where you got this from, but I can assure you that you misinterpreted my words. Conclusion I hope you read through all of this. If you did, then I hope I managed to convince you. If I didn't succeed, then maybe I was wrong about your issue with me, and it may be something completely different. If it's indeed something completely different, then I'm curious what it exactly is, for as I see it, we actually more or less agree on everything we have been talking about. Also, I'll ask one more time: What is your source for all the things you say regarding Lisa, her mother, and Steve?

1. I do care, but I rarely know of the producers I buy from in what conditions their products are made, nor do I really know about the lifestyle of the people I buy from. I tend to have a very analytical approach to these things, abiding by rules such as "not guilty until proven otherwise". In many cases regarding working conditions of employees, there is no definitive proof, just rumors. Show me proof, and I'll say "you were right", and I'll go buy from a different vendor. Until that time, I do not have a reason to buy from a different vendor however. Does that sound harsh?

Agreed.Unless you plan on doing a rather exhaustive search on every manufucturer and their contracters and sub contrators on every single product you purchase you will likely never know for sure what sort of wrongs are behind the products you purchase.You'd have to throw away practically everything you own and use that wasn't made by your own hands just to be sure.All we can do it put rules and laws into place, that if such bad deeds are discovered they are punished for it.In the case of Jobs, he was between the ages of 23 and 25, he was practically a kid himself. Who doesn't make mistakes in their 20's that they regret later on ? and he 'did' finally acknowledge her.Yes she and her mother were on welfare for a short time. But the girl lived quite a comfortable life afterwards and even lived with Jobs in her teens , she graduated from Harvard, (which Steve paid for) and now she possibly stands to inherit billions of dollars.Umm yeah, the poor girl she really suffered (sic).Regards.Ernie.

Ben, I appreciate the effort you put into your post. In some cases businessmen are public figures and in others they are not. Steve Jobs was a very public figure and a tech leader, not just Apple's CEO and important shareholder (282 million Google hits, had "star power"). By comparison Michael Dell is not a public figure and nobody cares what he does in his private life (2.6 milion Google hits, is not a leader, has no "star power", never will). Jobs was Apple's front man and, as any kid will tell you, "with great power comes great responsibility". When you chose to become a public figure you give up your private life to a large extent, and this means if you do things that are wrong you must apologize to the public at large that buys your products (or your movies or recordings if you're an actor or musician). And this is understood by most public figures. So to recap, his private apology is something beween him and his daughter, but public apology there was not (under the guise of "he's a very private man"), so I chose not to buy Apple products because I find his behaviour offensive (although now that he's dead this might change). It's really that simple. Cheers, - jahman.

Ben, I appreciate the effort you put into your post.

Thank you.

So to recap, his private apology is something beween him and his daughter, but public apology there was not (under the guise of "he's a very private man"), so I chose not to buy Apple products because I find his behaviour offensive (although now that he's dead this might change).

So then this is what we disagree on: whether Steve Jobs was a very public figure or not. We'll probably never going to get to a satisfying conclusion on this one, seeing as it seems to be such a fundamental thing, so I'll leave it for what it is. With this post of yours, I can only conclude that you understood what it is that I was trying to say all along, and it's good that we finally came to a conclusion on what exactly the issue is. Seeing that the actual issue here doesn't seem to be ethical in its nature in any whatsoever way (the consequences of the issue are, but not the issue itself), it seems that dragging in empathy was not necessary for, and your accusation was uncalled for. I hope you see that now. So, I ask you now to do what you would have wanted Steve Jobs to do: correct your offensive behavior by apologizing for your accusation that I have no empathy. And I observe you again neglected to tell me what your source is. After repeatedly asking for it, you still don't tell me what it is. I therefor have to conclude that you don't have a source and have been fabricating at least half of the stuff you have been saying, which would turn much of this discussion into a moot point. That'd be sad, seeing the length of it and the fact that both of us got worked up about it.

It's really that simple.

It is indeed very simple, so it all the more pains me that we had to take such a complicated route to finally get here. Ernie: I agree. I believe he made up for mistake by his later actions.

OK, so you are in a a small and rather odd minority of folks who don't believe Jobs was a public figure, an icon, trendsetter, etc. So in addition of not being empathic with Steves's daughter, you are now not being truthful: Given how you reacted to criticism of Jobs is obvious to anyone reading these posts that Jobs is your idol. And the fact that you admire him even though you don't know him is proof-perfect Jobs is famous (at least to you), i.e. has all the makings of a public figure. Q.E.D.. And if "it pains (you) that we had to take such a complicated route to finally get here", you have only yourself to blame. After all, after being told about what Jobs did to his daughter and her mother, instead of a more normal reaction along the lines of "gee, I'm sorry to hear he did that", you callously called me "cynical". Continuing to discuss this thread is now realy beyond meaningless (and now very far from flight simming), so I'm bowing out. Cheers, - jahman.

*sigh* Seems my post-before-last was completely and utterly wasted on you. Right, I've had it. If every attempt to reason with you on the basis of facts and evidence fails (as you seem so reluctant to give away your sources of information), and you must drag in unfounded and uncalled for accusations instead of reason me in a more scientific way (as we do here at the university of Leiden), then that's your loss.