LWS - your manifesto seems likely to have been written by a thoughtful, eloquent, and entertaining writer - one with a likable strain of self-deprecating humor - one against whom it should be difficult to carry a grudge - (even for appearing to come perilously close at times to adopting the convoluted perspective of some of the more crotchety, raggedy, "kick-me" curmudgeons who far too frequently twist themselves into delusional knots of third hand, fact-challenged blather of what they think they heard - but I digress : ).
Though I won't go as far as you seemed to in discrediting the utility of spirited, disciplined debate, I wouldnt't disagree with you on the wastefulness of arguing for the sake of arguing. Regarding the questions raised in #6959, you might be surprised at the response to a genuine effort to find answers to them. From time to time - far too infrequently - I'm impressed by the genuineness and earnestness of some posters' contributions to the VLNC thread. Jacques' post accomplished some needed transparency on a couple of issues. For one, it cast The VLNC CEO in a much more reasonable light and distance from what one might otherwise think in reading the representations and innuendoes of fmk. It appears that fmk, despite his efforts to portray otherwise, is something far less than a trusted confidante to the CEO or even the friends of the friends of the friends of the CEO. At the same time, it seems much less likely fmk is anything more than a self-interested spear carrier trying to prop up his own stake in a company. It does not appear he is in an agency way connected to VLNC.
Its late and I'm tired but, I did want to respond to your note, if only to acknowledge the spirit of your effort. Good luck with your VLNC thesis. |
