buyandsellandprofit,

I'm sorry you believe my replies have been "increasingly snippy and discourteous". That hasn't been my intention. However, you do misuse language through exaggeration and sloppiness. Calling Whole Foods dress code "neo-conservative" misuses the word neo-conservative. Calling Whole Foods "stodgy" or a "parochial-school style dress code" is misusing the meaning of these words. I'll be happy to define these words for you if you wish me to do so.

You still don't take up my challenge of naming another multiple unit food retailing company or Fortune 1000 company with a more open and liberal dress code than Whole Foods has. If you can't do that then it exposes your claims of "stodgy" and "parochial-school-style dress code" as inaccurate. How could Whole Foods dress code be "stodgy" and "parochial-school" if it is more open and liberal than any other Fortune 1000 company? I submit that it logically can't be and that therefore you are misusing these words.

You are quite mistaken if you believe Whole Foods management "reports to you" and owes you an explanation of its decisions about dress code. Whole Foods management reports to its Board of Directors. The Board of Directors holds management responsible and has the power and authority to discipline and fire management. It is the Board of Directors who is elected by the stockholders--not the management. If you are unhappy about the way Whole Foods management is running the company then you are free to sell your shares or attempt to elect a different slate of Directors to the Board. However, you have no direct authority or power over Whole Foods' management and they don't owe you an explanation about their management decisions.

I'm pretty sure if you wrote a letter to the management of Whole Foods asking about the dress code changes in Madison they would tell you that they made the changes because they believed it would be good for the business--that the customers overall preferred a tighter dress code. Once again--why else would they change the dress code? You haven't provided any alternative interpretations for possible management motivation in changing the dress code. You may disagree and disapprove of the decision, but you haven't provided any other explanations for why the decision was made.

You have much higher respect for the integrity of journalists than I do. In my experience, journalists aren't dedicated to telling the truth or communicating the facts. Journalists are committed to telling a "story" which generates interest and helps sell whatever media they are working for.

Sure I think Aaron Nathans was probably making things up, taking quotes out of context, exaggerating some things, and not reporting other things. This is par for the course in journalism. I see no need to contact the New York Times to report on Mr. Nathans. Really what good would that do and why would I want to do it? Life is too short. If Mr. Nathans wants to sue me for libel then let him go ahead. I think he'll have a difficult time proving his case.

Your final quote about "expanding into love" proves my earlier point about journalists. I have little doubt that this quote from Mackey's letter to Whole Foods' employees was taken out of context. After all an entire letter was written. How can anyone expect to understand what Mackey wrote in the letter by only reading a sentence or 2 out of the whole letter? You can't. By the way, "expanding into love" or "contracting into fear" makes quite a bit of sense to me even if it doesn't to you.