Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dank
Since you are unable or unwilling to refute any of those points which you took offense to, I can only assume I was correct. No surprise there, they're pretty much all fact. A lot tougher to dispute fact than to argue over semantics, though.
|
Please quote the exact language I used to say that I "took offense to" those particular points. Wait-- Let me save you some time... I never said it. I posted about your having intentionally or unintentionally made a pronuncement of collective resolution. Nothing more, nothing less.
You also say I am "unable or unwilling to refute"... and yet you have ignored my last post and moved off tangentially.
In that post, I stated that the changes work fine for me. And since I don't speak for anyone but myself, that's all the refutation you need.
But since you brought it up: All of the "points" you are trying to make are either your personal spin on the facts ["refusal to notify in advance, refusal to solicit input or feedback... and refusal to even look at documented explanations of the opposing viewpoint (which supposedly is wrong)"] or totally subjective arguments ["refusal to give resulting concerns anything more than passing consideration"]. These points cannot be disproven by anyone, simply because they are your opinion -- not fact.
But let's go point by point anyway:
-- "Refusal to notify in advance". Deb never said that FQ "refused" to notify in advance. She explained the circumstances surrounding notification in an entirely satisfactory way, IMO, and, IMO, their course of action was justified. (Notice that I state this as the opinion that it is, not some factual pronouncement.) There is no need for me to rehash this subject; Deb's posts speak for themselves.
-- "Refusal to solicit input or feedback". This is part of the previous point. It is entirely unreasonable (an understatement) to see Deb's 24-hour-a-day presence in this forum for days on end, listening to users' concerns, giving detailed explanations and offering help -- as she did specifically for you -- to be a "Refusal to solicit input or feedback". And since the company chose to use the information it was already getting from resellers as at least a partial basis for their decision(s), it's apparent that input and feedback have been ongoing, and that this feedback was taken into consideration by FQ when formulating the restructured plan. There are, however, practical limits to the accommodations FQ can make, and in the end, they must keep the company financially viable. This I understand and accept. And since the changes work for me, I don't have a problem with them. That's my feedback.
-- "Refusal to even look at documented explanations of the opposing viewpoint (which supposedly is wrong)" This is simply your spin on things. You are ascribing an intention ("refusal to look at ... the opposing viewpoint") to someone, but you cannot substantiate it. Deb said that she doesn't want to (paraphrasing) know about or interfere with your private financial dealings, e.g. margins. If I were in her position, I would say the exact same thing; it is not my place to act as financial advisor to my clients, and I would never look at their books or ask them to look at mine. Many theoretical situations have been posted (by you and others), and read and replied to by Deb in tremendous detail. Saying the company doesn't care about you or the points you are making because they decline to examine your private books is a conclusion that cannot be reasonably drawn.
-- "Refusal to give resulting concerns anything more than passing consideration". Utterly subjective. And, IMO, utterly ridiculous. See above for discussion of Deb's virtually sleepless presence in this and other forums. At what other host can you find that kind of top-level presence, attentiveness and willingness to exchange ideas, post after post, day after day?
"Pretty much all fact"? Absurd.
In the end, Dan, you have largely constructed in this thread a scenario in which you are determined to "win", even though there is nothing to be won. It is a scenario in which you cannot lose, because you challenge others to disprove subjective, not objective arguments.
And also because you will never let the discussion end... unless you have the last word.
For example, this supposed "resolution" of yours was reached just
after the company representative left the thread.
But since you are compelled, I'll let you have exactly what you're craving -- The Last Word.
Enjoy.
...Bob
Bob West
- Unsubscribed from thread
Linear Mode
