Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (287066)	5/7/2006 1:20:28 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574761

Why do you frequently choose to critique the person rather than the position they are presenting? Don't give me your stock answer BS - this only happens with you. You are the most partisan, biased, non-objective poster on the thread, and also an America-hater. Your limited one sided viewpoint produces the criticism of you in many posters. It's not their/our fault - it's a result of your blinder mentality "see only evil in the USA" viewpoint. Again, you change the subject.........but now that you have; the only time you start with your personality assassinations or criticisms is when the person doesn't agree with your POV. In recent months, you have gone after others on this thread who also don't agree with your perspective. And your attacks are rather vicious and mean spirited. The discussion will be going along rather evenly, and suddenly one of your stinging, one liners is posted. Its the way a bully operates. Are you a bully, Elroy? As for the people who attack me, strangely enough, their profile is similar to yours.......someone who supports the war in Iraq, sees little wrong with current affairs in America, is a bit self righteous and arrogant, and has a very thin skin. Rarely, when you take an opposing view do you defend your position with substantive support consisting of factual info.......ie your position on CEO pay. My "position" on CEO pay was a conjecture that perhaps the increase in stock option compensation explains the increase in pay from the 1950s to the 1990s. I still think that it's probably true. I don't care that much about it, so I'm not going to go research it to satisfy your desire for a link to what seems intuitively correct to me. Of course you don't.........you like being anti simply for the sake of looking clever........or at least you think it makes you look clever. And I am glad you called your comments exactly what they are........pure conjecture........rarely do your criticisms carry any more weight than conjecture. Instead, you either unilaterally trash the person's position without providing any support for your claim while making a halfass effort to provide documentation, or you suggest there is a flaw in the person's personality and/or his/her approach to life. Trash your opinion? I asked you if you were against stock option compensation or not, you said stock options were nowhere close to the majority of a CEO's salary and I said sometimes they are, and gave an example(CSCO). "Sometimes"......no. You said "the majority". This is what you said: "I'd bet the majority of the explanation in growth of CEO salaries from 1950 to 1990 is due to stock based compensation." You said that in order to undercut the message of the article I posted. In truth, stock options may be part of the reason but they are just one of several reasons for the increasing salaries. However, the bottom line remains that CEO salaries have increased at a phenomenal rate and there is reason to believe that this huge increase is not justified. In the subsequent discussion you told me to "stick it where the sun don't shine", called me a "sanctimonious twit" numerous times, told me that my kind (whatever that means) is "threatened with extinction", and then indicated that you should be respected for the high level of content that you, in your opinion, contribute to the thread. Yes, I said all that because that's what you are.......in fact, the sanctimonious twit comment fits you best. Do you know what a sanctimonious twit is......look it up....it fits you to a T? A couple of years ago there were a lot of sanctimonious twits running around SI but they have become much quieter and less visible in recent months. I wonder why.....NOT. Do you ever shine the critical examination light on yourself? Someday do so and I don't think you are going to like what you see. Once again, we are off subject. Its you we are shining the critical light on for a change, not me. And, you still haven't provided your recommendation about how to bring CEO salaries down to what you consider an appopriate level. You have complained a lot, and advocated nothing. What's your proposed solution, Senator Whiner, to improve the thing you are upset about? I never said I was king. And you'd better keep a civil toungue or I am going to put you back on ignoramus. Go for it..........I get way too many posts to begin with and I don't have the time to deal with sanctimonious twits like you who can't factually support their crass attacks on others; although I must admit I take some pleasure in gaming them from time to time.