"My father wanted us to move to Claremore, but I told him, 'Dad, I want my husband to be himself, Idon't want him to be L. S. Robson's son-in-law. I want him to be Sam Walton."As I mentioned, Helen's father was a very prominent lawyer, banker, and rancher, and she felt weshould be independent. I agreed with her, and I thought our best opportunity might be inSt. Louis. As itturned out, an old friend of mine, Tom Bates, also wanted to go into the department store business. I'dknown Tom when we were kids in Shelbinahis father owned the biggest department store in townandTom and I were roommates in the Beta Theta Pi fraternity house atMissouri. When I got out of theArmy, I caught up with Tom inSt. Louis. He was working in the shoe department of Butler Brothers. "They were back there about a half hour, and then they marched out without so much as a goodbye. Afew minutes later, Sam came down and told Whitaker and me that they had issued an ultimatum: Don'tbuild any more of these Wal-Mart stores. We knew he felt threatened because he had all those BenFranklin franchises. But we also knew Sam Walton wasn't the kind of guy you issued ultimatums to."To tell the truth, though, that first Wal-Mart in Rogers wasn't all that great. We did a million dollars in ayear, a lot more than most of our variety stores, which did $200,000 to $300,000 a year. But remember,Saint Robertup there in that Army townwas doing $2 million in sales. Once we opened Rogers, we satthere and held our breath for two years. Then we put stores up in Springdale, a bigger town near Rogers,and Harrison, a smaller town. Here, of course, I have to let David Glass tell his now-famous story aboutcoming to Harrison to see what a Wal-Mart was, and being so horrified at the sight. 白白色,白白色发布,白白发布,白白色在线,白白色在线视频 Force Ideas to Bubble UpThis goes hand-in-hand with pushing responsibility down. We're always looking for new ways toencourage our associates out in the stores to push their ideas up through the system. We do a lot of thisat Saturday morning meetings. We'll invite associates who have thought up something that's really workedwell for their storea particular item or a particular display to come share those ideas with us. Thus, fathers, it is unquestionable that your authors have given permission to kill in defence of property and honour, though life should be perfectly free from danger. And it is upon the same principle that they authorize duelling, as I have shown by a great variety of passages from their writings, to which you have made no reply. You have animadverted in your writings only on a single passage taken from Father Layman, who sanctions the above practice, 鈥渨hen otherwise a person would be in danger of sacrificing his fortune or his honour鈥? and here you accuse me with having suppressed what he adds, 鈥渢hat such a case happens very rarely.鈥?You astonish me, fathers: these are really curious impostures you charge me withal. You talk as if the question were whether that is a rare case? when the real question is if, in such a case, duelling is lawful? These are two very different questions. Layman, in the quality of a casuist, ought to judge whether duelling is lawful in the case supposed; and he declares that it is. We can judge without his assistance whether the case be a rare one; and we can tell him that it is a very ordinary one. Or, if you prefer the testimony of your good friend Diana, he will tell you that 鈥渢he case is exceedingly common.鈥?But, be it rare or not, and let it be granted that Layman follows in this the example of Navarre, a circumstance on which you lay so much stress, is it not shameful that he should consent to such an opinion as that, to preserve a false honour, it is lawful in conscience to accept of a challenge, in the face of the edicts of all Christian states, and of all the canons of the Church, while in support of these diabolical maxims you can produce neither laws, nor canons, nor authorities from Scripture, or from the fathers, nor the example of a single saint, nor, in short, anything but the following impious synogism: 鈥淗onour is more than life; it is allowable to kill in defence of life; therefore it is allowable to kill in defence of honour!鈥?What, fathers! because the depravity of men disposes them to prefer that factitious honour before the life which God hath given them to be devoted to his service, must they be permitted to murder one another for its preservation? To love that honour more than life is in itself a heinous evil; and yet this vicious passion, which, when proposed as the end of our conduct, is enough to tarnish the holiest of actions, is considered by you capable of sanctifying the most criminal of them!