And if you don't agree with someone's opinion, why make a negative statement at all? Isn't everyone entitled to an opinion?
Sure they are, Ron.
Lizzie, I suggest you take a long relaxing vacation. You are becoming an irrational extremist, IMHO.
Regards, Ron
Message 18696565
Since at least a few people on the Cisco thread agreed with my post, I'll assume at least a few do not consider me to be an irrational extremist. I do apologize for this problem that I have of tripping over multiple threads, in this case intel and cisco. Same people on both, similar discussions, and I get confused.
I challenge you to find a post where I used the word "abuse", or a synonym thereof, when discussing options.
Just go to a search the Cisco thread, type in the word "abuse" and you will discover multple posts where options were being discussed among 4 people- yourself, hueyone, John Shannon and mindmeld. Its certainly possible that you never said the word abuse while the others did (repeatedly) of course. The tone of the discussions is directed towards options abuse, this is quite apparent.
But since you take issue with the term, I'm curious- is it your belief that options as they are currently utilized and documented are fair and equitable and key drivers of growth/innovation at companies like cisco, intel, msft then? As you know that is my position, in fact I don't believe some companies can succeed without the current options treatment... if you and I are not far apart on this then why call me an irrational extremist, when I am merely echoing the pov of John Doerr and others?
If you truly believe that I have mischaracterized you as someone who believes options are abused, then I certainly apologize, but right now I'm wondering what this is all about.
Lizzie |
