Wow, when you think it can't get any stupider. Bush strikes again

I'll clarify so your tiny mind can understand.

I'd treat more of the people like they could handle a legit argument if the responses weren't ad hominem bullshit like: "What about that chemical discharge in Nepal 25 years ago? That PROVES newspapers are good places to work."

That's not assuming I'm smarter. That's anticipating a useless response -- you are the expert on the subject, Mr. Soccer Stud -- and adjusting for it.

Get it? Probably not, but one can hope.

Just go back to wishing Gore and Kerry had won.

 

OK, make an argument.
A real one, you know, with data and stuff to back up what you say. Pick a topic.

 

Fine. Try to control your sophomoric urges, though.

I'll go back to the topic I mentioned here. If a newspaper claims it's hired someone who is allegedly "a whiz" at the Internet site, then fails to close the deal, leaves him twisting, then loses him to another paper, is that not an example of poor management?

This is a yes or no question. Do not cite other industries. Do not reach back 100 years. Do not try to discredit me, even though I'm often entertained by those attempts.

It's either yes or no.

 

I don't really care about your riddle, DyePack, but I have to say -- despite your frequently valuable contributions to the writer's workshop -- that you really do make this place less fun. That, and I don't understand the motivation.

I'm not saying you're alone in this. But why are you here if you hate everybody so much? Honestly, I'm curious.

 

"Fails to close the deal" meaning what? Reneged on promises? Shuffled him into metro rather than letting him do what he thought he was hired to do.
Given the limited facts you present, I'd say it was really bad management, but I'd like more detail. I sure wouldn't take a job there without a shark for a lawyer.

 

That's a good question, Jones.

The balance of the posters seems to vary. We seem to have hit a spell of douchebaggery of late.

A few of the better people seem to be on a break. It's just been in the last couple of days that the usual stuff has flared up.

I guess in a nutshell, I find it curious that so many allegedly professional adults can't seem to make original, logically formed arguments. When they're called on it, they react so strongly that it's almost addictive to keep rattling their chain.

I mean, these are people who should be somewhat immune to criticism by now. Plus, I often find it strange that people who are intent on complaining about how terrible the various chains and newspapers are seem to take such an affront when someone proposes possible changes.

These sentences certainly don't apply to many people here. Maybe not even most people here. But of late, they seem to be highly applicable.

Maybe I'll go on a break for a while. I've got some work to do on getting the word out to non-newspaper people about some of what happens behind the doors.

 

Maybe you could, I don't know, look at the other thread for those answers.

I realize this violates your long-held stance against researching the facts, though.

Still waiting for a yes or a no ...

 

Dyepack,
Please take your ball and go home!

 

Jones, I've already explained why he's here.

He's only here because he honestly believes -- why, I have no idea since he's been shown otherwise so many times -- that he's smarter than all of us. He completely believes that.

And everytime a group of us tire of his shit and show him to be the asshat that he is, he leaves, changes names and returns with the same bullshit.

 

I believe I said yes.
You haven't presented a single documented fact that I'm aware of under any of your three identities.
Please to be pissing off now.

 

Dyepack = Roger Ailes?