5 ms·

Are you defending this guy?

by mrbgty 16y ago

jgrahamc 16y ago
No. I'm pointing out that he may be a total ass, but it doesn't seem to have hurt his company.
- mrbgty 16y ago
  I appreciate you pointing out that it doesn't seem to have hurt company, although its very like that it did in other unmeasurable ways. Your post seemed to excuse his actions as if its just his style.
- barrkel 16y ago
  Yes, but you didn't present evidence that he didn't hurt his company. You presented evidence that he didn't hurt the company so badly that it didn't grow, but not that he didn't hurt the company.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > You presented evidence that he didn't hurt the company so badly that it didn't grow, but not that he didn't hurt the company. Since no one has presented evidence showing that he hurt his company.... In my book, you don't get to complain about the quality of someone else's evidence unless your evidence is better. And no, "self-evident" doesn't count. YMMV.
    - barrkel 16y ago
      At the risk of getting meta, I was complaining about the quality of the evidence for the assertion. I never made any assertions about the company suffering in any way because of this guy.
  - borism 16y ago
    in past 10 years the stock has grown at an annualized rate of 19%, weathered 2008 crash extremely well and has doubled since crash. The guy is also still at the helm at the age of 60. He might be the worse a*hole possible, but whatever he's doing seems to be working pretty well.
    - mfukar 16y ago
      Without intimate knowledge of the company's workings, plans and actions in those past 10 years, that logic is post hoc ergo propter hoc. The only thing we can say for sure is his jackassery didn't hurt the company as much as a rational person would think it might.
xenophanes 16y ago
He's commenting on the truth of certain statements. Are you saying we should gloss over some facts just to make the guy look even worse than he already does?
- mrbgty 16y ago
  Nope. I'm saying, "Are you defending this guy?"
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    By conflating making true statements about the stock market (good) with defending assholes (bad), you create an environment hostile to truth.
    - mrbgty 16y ago
      I was genuinely curious.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    When did you stop beating your wife?
foulmouthboy 16y ago
Sure. Why not? The morale of the company was supposedly "killed" after that email and the evidence used was a drop in stock price, but a little investigation shows that the stock price is actually fine. Therefore, any accusation that the CEO is ineffective appears to be false and deserves to be defended against.

Are you defending this guy?

by mrbgty 16y ago

Are you defending this guy?

jgrahamc 16y ago

No. I'm pointing out that he may be a total ass, but it doesn't seem to have hurt his company.

mrbgty 16y ago
I appreciate you pointing out that it doesn't seem to have hurt company, although its very like that it did in other unmeasurable ways. Your post seemed to excuse his actions as if its just his style.
barrkel 16y ago
Yes, but you didn't present evidence that he didn't hurt his company. You presented evidence that he didn't hurt the company so badly that it didn't grow, but not that he didn't hurt the company.
- anamax 16y ago
  > You presented evidence that he didn't hurt the company so badly that it didn't grow, but not that he didn't hurt the company. Since no one has presented evidence showing that he hurt his company.... In my book, you don't get to complain about the quality of someone else's evidence unless your evidence is better. And no, "self-evident" doesn't count. YMMV.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    At the risk of getting meta, I was complaining about the quality of the evidence for the assertion. I never made any assertions about the company suffering in any way because of this guy.
- borism 16y ago
  in past 10 years the stock has grown at an annualized rate of 19%, weathered 2008 crash extremely well and has doubled since crash. The guy is also still at the helm at the age of 60. He might be the worse a*hole possible, but whatever he's doing seems to be working pretty well.
  - mfukar 16y ago
    Without intimate knowledge of the company's workings, plans and actions in those past 10 years, that logic is post hoc ergo propter hoc. The only thing we can say for sure is his jackassery didn't hurt the company as much as a rational person would think it might.

xenophanes 16y ago

He's commenting on the truth of certain statements. Are you saying we should gloss over some facts just to make the guy look even worse than he already does?

mrbgty 16y ago
Nope. I'm saying, "Are you defending this guy?"
- xenophanes 16y ago
  By conflating making true statements about the stock market (good) with defending assholes (bad), you create an environment hostile to truth.
  - mrbgty 16y ago
    I was genuinely curious.
- jbooth 16y ago
  When did you stop beating your wife?

foulmouthboy 16y ago

Sure. Why not? The morale of the company was supposedly "killed" after that email and the evidence used was a drop in stock price, but a little investigation shows that the stock price is actually fine. Therefore, any accusation that the CEO is ineffective appears to be false and deserves to be defended against.