PartyTime, why couldn't you leave it at this:
"Closing those offices, given Europe's unique languages and inherent difficulties with demographics, plus the cost of running those offices when Zulu was not ready to present its full business plan, was a
stroke of genius"
That is the substance of the post.
That is your opinion. I have stated mine. We could agree to disagree, without making personal attacks.
But you can't. You just are incapable of making your case without attacking me.
You significantly diminish the power of your argument by doing so.
If you'd just state your case, people can read my take, and they can read yours, and they can decide which one seems more reasonable. Or they can ask some questions, or do some of their own investigation.
And, in fact, in this case I think either argument sounds reasonable. It's a judgement call. Perhaps it would have been very costly to have maintained the European operation. Perhaps they could have sold it and recovered much of the cost of acquiring SIM. My take is tilted one way, yours the other.
So, why can't we have a civil discussion about it? We may not (almost certainly will not) reach a conclusion that we can agree on, but we could expose the issues so that others could make up their own minds.
But when you sandwich your arguments in personal attacks, deomonizing your opponent, you being to argue against your own side, by demonstrating that you don't feel you have a case that can stand-up on it's own merit. |
