T.G.W.
I disagree with your latest post to BigRedMan, I honestly believe that his presence here has had a major calming effect on the thread, I have found him to be fair and honest, and armed to refute the innuendo that has spewed forth here.
I also cannot believe that you find him insulting. His replies to you have always been thoughtful, and he has not engaged in the usual name-calling so common on this thread and others. In fact he has gone out of his way to treat you with respect, respect that you did not return.
This thread has the potential to become one of the finest on SI if we all (you and me included) can contain our emotions and discuss all aspects of this company as openly and honestly as possible.
I have asked the other posters on this thread to back off on the personal attacks and I have asked you and MMpro to do the same. But We also expect an end to the innuendo, We all welcome facts that can be discussed and investigated. Innuendo cannot be refuted because it can be twisted and turned in so many ways that meaningful discussion is impossible.
I am asking you again, to please stick to the facts, I and I'm sure all others on this thread welcome anyone with facts to discuss.
As for Mr.Davis, All discussions of him should cease, they just tend to lend him an air credibility. He will have to live with what he has said and done.
Finally, as to your quote that " I can assure you that when the dust settles, and the facts about this company are finally revealed, your name will be at the top of the list for censure and maybe more."
We have all been eagerly awaiting GLOW's fully reporting status. I believe we all understand that some things, which may have been questionable, were probably done by the company before Gary took over.
After all, why would a company change C.E.O.'s and other management if they were doing a good job ? If you have facts about any of the companies past doings, please post them or stop the innuendo !!!!
If you do not post these facts (Your words, not mine) we will all assume that you do not have them. In which case we are back to the innuendo.
jjbucci |
