You are being fooled: The article was deliberately ambiguous. What I said is fully appropriate: "plentiful, easy, worthless, and don't 'count'" as a statemen

You are being fooled: The article was deliberately ambiguous. What I said is fully appropriate: "plentiful, easy, worthless, and don't 'count'" as a statement of one of the claims of the article. That is, the article flatly stated that: "It is the manner in which ideas are executed that counts." So, the execution "counts". So, he is saying that the ideas don't "count". That is, what he was saying is usually interpreted as 'execution is ALL that counts'. The quote you extracted is even self-contradictory: In his first sentence he says that ideas are not "enough" so admits that they are necessary but in his second sentence is back to saying that it is the 'execution' that "counts" essentially saying that the ideas are not even necessary. He's just spinning nasty stuff, and trying to write in ways that are slightly difficult to debunk. But his point is quite clear: He believes that ideas are worthless, that execution is everything, that is, all that "counts". Worst of all, he omits any concept that there can be bad ideas and good ideas. Basically he wants to run down ideas. As I explain, and as in the link I gave, this running down ideas is common in business. My point about "equivalent" is a reasonable implication to draw since to him execution "counts" and, thus, ideas don't and, thus, are equivalent.