Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4407400" data-attributes="member: 52839">First, "different ideas about the direction" is a variable being introduced that cannot be assumed. Second, businesses don't change practices for the sake of change. Change is expensive. If they changed, it's because the potential income would be benefited by the change. The amount of change depends on how much information being changed was determined to be a detriment to improving the financial benefit. Third, what's being assumed here is that a change in one or two managers in the company affects the decisions made by the company's lawyers, financial advisers, and marketing. It would take a substantial overhaul of its management to accomplish such a grand change, and frankly, I see no evidence that such a fundamental shift in WOTC's operations has occurred. As far as I know, the same people are in charge that were in charge 7 years ago. They simply have shifted positions. You all are going to have to come up with better claims than "the people who matter" or "suits". Name some names and show how it has affected the decision making regarding this document. What is so different about the new person's view that's different from the old person's view, and show how they have the influence to change this document.You see, these are huge variables. My view doesn't requires such great infusions of external factors. My logic is: the document was bad, therefore it got drastically changed. Lots of avenues got cut off, showing that the cut off avenues were as bad for profits as I suspected (confirmation of a theory I had before the GSL was revealed).I've made no claim beyond the evidence of a changed document. You all, however, are tossing in external factors based on claims that have nothing to do with the document itself. So, while I can infer that a contract costs money to change and therefore has to have a bottom line for people to change, you all are declaring that a new unknown employee in an unknown position on the third floor of your place of work sent a memo to your boss to make your job harder, just because the new employee has different views about how your job is run than the person that used to be in his job, based on no evidence at all but daydreaming. The assumption there is: He's new, therefore this new change is his fault.</blockquote>

Verification