Originally Posted by anonymouse
And I, in response, said the numbers don't matter.
No. You actually delivered a diatribe where that particular part of the message was delivered as an after thought and an almost dismissive manner. You said that the issue was important even if the loss had been a penny per store.
I suspect what you wanted to say was that the size of the loss does not matter, not that the numbers don't matter. There is a difference you know.
None-the-less, your screed focussed on the advertising practices, not on what I said. In doing so, your comment completely ignored what I said about the numbers and what I also said about the advertising allegations.
Worse, your response back to my comment ignored what I said by implying that the main part of your response was saying the numbers did not matter. Truth is, your comment about the numbers came at the end and represents less than 10% of your response.
In the real world, if you respond at someone with 9 minutes of diatribe over something they did not say and one minute of their perspective is different at the very end of your comments, no one is listening. You lost them early by taking them to task over something they agree with.
And so you will understand why I commented as I did originally, others had already commented on the advertising issue. I would add little new. Plus, the author of the article and the lawsuit made the size an issue as the implication was the loss was sizeable.Edited by macaholic_1948 - 1/4/13 at 6:50pm