3 ms·

No. You are stating your opinion based on disregarding the facts at hand because they don't align with your worldview, this is exactly how an intelligent perso

by apalmer 14y ago

No. You are stating your opinion based on disregarding the facts at hand because they don't align with your worldview, this is exactly how an intelligent person can end up not understanding something basic. The individual who actually went over the financials in detail, and who actually knew Sherman, and who actually spoke to Sherman about the financial situation at the time is putting his reputation on the statement that Sherman did not understand margin. He might be right, or he may be wrong, but he has a lot more backing to his opinion than you do.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
Yes, I am stating my opinion, as are you. Odd that you charge me with speaking out of turn while yourself presuming to understand my "worldview" and the thought process that led me to my conclusions. You're in my head now? >He has a lot more backing to his opinion than you do. And, I know my own "worldview" better than you do. Or would you like to explain my worldview to me? As well, I know better than you how I arrived at my own conclusion. It's simple common sense. What adult doesn't understand that a company profits by earning more than it spends? I could be right or I could be wrong, but I will go with the rational conclusion.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Oh, I see what you're griping about with regard to my "worldview". Yes, I do believe that SV is a pressure cooker. I'm not sure if that one opinion represents a "worldview" and I'm not sure who actually disagrees with the observation, but you're certainly free to do so. Still, that was literally just a side note (as I mentioned). It has no bearing on the ridiculousness of the suggestion that Mr. Sherman literally couldn't add, subtract, or multiply.
ScottWhigham 14y ago
Well said. And don't forget that, for many people, there's a difference between understanding a basic concept (margins) and understanding its effect on you/your baby/your life. We humans do this as a matter of routine (smoking, alcohol, obesity, etc).
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  >there's a difference between understanding a basic concept (margins) and understanding its effect on you/your baby/your life. That's absolutely true, but that's more of an abstract observation of human behavior. On the other hand, the author is stating that Mr. Sherman literally did not understand the basic math of margins (ex: that the more products they sold below cost, the more money they lost). In my opinion, that's a completely ridiculous notion. Such statements are insulting and fit with the tone of the article, which essentially attacks Mr. Sherman as incompetent and a virtual imbecile. The author appears to have some other motive to be so bluntly disrespectful to someone who has passed. C.Y.A.? Personality conflicts? Something else? Who knows? But, since Mr. Sherman is not here to defend his actions or rationale, it seems a shame to allow these ridiculous memes about him to thrive. I'm sure there is valid criticism that one can heap on Mr. Sherman's days at the helm of Ecomom and the decisions he made (including the one to discount products and give up his margin). If one wants to critique that, then it's fair game. But, to sit around and suggest that the man literally couldn't understand basic addition and subtraction is ridiculous. It is no credit to the author to insult the man when he's no longer here to defend himself.
  - plorkyeran 14y ago
    It is certainly quite possible that "Phil, just bring me a forecast that shows how much we need to sell to break even" is a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said, but if it is at all true then Sherman did in fact literally not understand the concept of margins.
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      Maybe. If. If he said exactly that. And, if he meant exactly that. And, If there's no other context. And if... But, Phil seems to be unsynched with himself. On one hand he accuses Mr. Sherman of literally not understanding margins. On the other hand he clearly implies that Mr. Sherman deliberately avoided talk of margins/profits in a company meeting because he was a "master marketer" who "led a management meeting that focused on an awesome feel good marketing plan." So, by that, he is clearly indicating that he thought Mr. Sherman understood margins well. So well that he was deft enough to avoid speaking of them; instead using his "master marketer" skills to somehow mislead management and divert their attention away from margins. Completely contradicts the notion that he didn't know what margins were. And why on earth is Phil speculating about one side of phone conversations that he overheard? That's not his place (as a controller), and it's amateurish at best. There are some "interesting" statements being thrown around in the article. They seem to be gossipy, reckless and, at best, inconsistent.

by apalmer 14y ago

unclebucknasty 14y ago

Yes, I am stating my opinion, as are you. Odd that you charge me with speaking out of turn while yourself presuming to understand my "worldview" and the thought process that led me to my conclusions. You're in my head now? >He has a lot more backing to his opinion than you do. And, I know my own "worldview" better than you do. Or would you like to explain my worldview to me? As well, I know better than you how I arrived at my own conclusion. It's simple common sense. What adult doesn't understand that a company profits by earning more than it spends? I could be right or I could be wrong, but I will go with the rational conclusion.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
Oh, I see what you're griping about with regard to my "worldview". Yes, I do believe that SV is a pressure cooker. I'm not sure if that one opinion represents a "worldview" and I'm not sure who actually disagrees with the observation, but you're certainly free to do so. Still, that was literally just a side note (as I mentioned). It has no bearing on the ridiculousness of the suggestion that Mr. Sherman literally couldn't add, subtract, or multiply.

ScottWhigham 14y ago

Well said. And don't forget that, for many people, there's a difference between understanding a basic concept (margins) and understanding its effect on you/your baby/your life. We humans do this as a matter of routine (smoking, alcohol, obesity, etc).

unclebucknasty 14y ago
>there's a difference between understanding a basic concept (margins) and understanding its effect on you/your baby/your life. That's absolutely true, but that's more of an abstract observation of human behavior. On the other hand, the author is stating that Mr. Sherman literally did not understand the basic math of margins (ex: that the more products they sold below cost, the more money they lost). In my opinion, that's a completely ridiculous notion. Such statements are insulting and fit with the tone of the article, which essentially attacks Mr. Sherman as incompetent and a virtual imbecile. The author appears to have some other motive to be so bluntly disrespectful to someone who has passed. C.Y.A.? Personality conflicts? Something else? Who knows? But, since Mr. Sherman is not here to defend his actions or rationale, it seems a shame to allow these ridiculous memes about him to thrive. I'm sure there is valid criticism that one can heap on Mr. Sherman's days at the helm of Ecomom and the decisions he made (including the one to discount products and give up his margin). If one wants to critique that, then it's fair game. But, to sit around and suggest that the man literally couldn't understand basic addition and subtraction is ridiculous. It is no credit to the author to insult the man when he's no longer here to defend himself.
- plorkyeran 14y ago
  It is certainly quite possible that "Phil, just bring me a forecast that shows how much we need to sell to break even" is a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said, but if it is at all true then Sherman did in fact literally not understand the concept of margins.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Maybe. If. If he said exactly that. And, if he meant exactly that. And, If there's no other context. And if... But, Phil seems to be unsynched with himself. On one hand he accuses Mr. Sherman of literally not understanding margins. On the other hand he clearly implies that Mr. Sherman deliberately avoided talk of margins/profits in a company meeting because he was a "master marketer" who "led a management meeting that focused on an awesome feel good marketing plan." So, by that, he is clearly indicating that he thought Mr. Sherman understood margins well. So well that he was deft enough to avoid speaking of them; instead using his "master marketer" skills to somehow mislead management and divert their attention away from margins. Completely contradicts the notion that he didn't know what margins were. And why on earth is Phil speculating about one side of phone conversations that he overheard? That's not his place (as a controller), and it's amateurish at best. There are some "interesting" statements being thrown around in the article. They seem to be gossipy, reckless and, at best, inconsistent.