comment by I'm not Spartacus. and definitely not Vidal (U4603)
posted 1 minute ago
Can you contradict anything I have said though Baz?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you're perfectly correct tha the early bird gets the worm and that evidently anything tha comes afterward is immediately a failure; that must be why we're all driving steam-powered cars, eh?
FFS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
666
Other than you are a congenital idiot can you explain how you make the leap from a simple statement that in order for a business to prosper it must have sufficient cash flow early on to survive, to the conclusion we would all be driving steam cars. English was never your strong point I know but perhaps even your pathetic powers of observation might have noticed that we used steam engines before internal combustion engines, whether they be of the Watt design or the Hornblower. Basically you are the most stupid person who ever touched a keyboard.
Do you believe you actually made that simple staement though, Spurt?
The facts of the matter, which are here on the thread readily available for you or anyone else to read again at leisure, are that you questioned Mel's aptitude for running the club as it could be a different business model to those at which he has already proven his aptitude. You put this:
"Baz. The reason why some people are successful in business is that they are very focussed in a particular field. This might not transfer to running a different type of business. I would like to use Donald Trump as an example but his business track record doesn't look that good either.
Mel probably made lots of poor business decisions but enough good ones. If you make the right ones early enough you succeed.
Baz, there are thousands who start businesses with good ideas but run out of capital before they take off. "
Baz then countered by demonstrating that, in fact, Mel had succeeded not in one specialised field but across a whole range of different businesses including but not limited to joinery, dating website, and phone games. He also cited Richard Branson as another example of a multi-disciplined business mogul who was a huge success.
You then started banging on about Hornblower and Watts and Tubular Bells and explained how Richard Branson was just lucky, and then got luckier. The admittedly-quick research I’ve done on Hornblower suggests that his engine was a failure due to patenting already in place to protect Watt’s engine rather than money, and that he nonetheless went on to great engineering successes in the field and was wealthy because of them, but I’ve only used Britannica and Wiki to check and obviously you’d remember better, having probably seen it first hand or something.
Pre-season training.
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 3/7/17
posted on 3/7/17
... another classic 'spartism!
posted on 3/7/17
comment by I'm not Spartacus. and definitely not Vidal (U4603)
posted 1 minute ago
Can you contradict anything I have said though Baz?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you're perfectly correct tha the early bird gets the worm and that evidently anything tha comes afterward is immediately a failure; that must be why we're all driving steam-powered cars, eh?
FFS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
666
Other than you are a congenital idiot can you explain how you make the leap from a simple statement that in order for a business to prosper it must have sufficient cash flow early on to survive, to the conclusion we would all be driving steam cars. English was never your strong point I know but perhaps even your pathetic powers of observation might have noticed that we used steam engines before internal combustion engines, whether they be of the Watt design or the Hornblower. Basically you are the most stupid person who ever touched a keyboard.
posted on 3/7/17
.... As Igor once rightly said..... 'NURSE??'
posted on 3/7/17
Do you believe you actually made that simple staement though, Spurt?
The facts of the matter, which are here on the thread readily available for you or anyone else to read again at leisure, are that you questioned Mel's aptitude for running the club as it could be a different business model to those at which he has already proven his aptitude. You put this:
"Baz. The reason why some people are successful in business is that they are very focussed in a particular field. This might not transfer to running a different type of business. I would like to use Donald Trump as an example but his business track record doesn't look that good either.
Mel probably made lots of poor business decisions but enough good ones. If you make the right ones early enough you succeed.
Baz, there are thousands who start businesses with good ideas but run out of capital before they take off. "
Baz then countered by demonstrating that, in fact, Mel had succeeded not in one specialised field but across a whole range of different businesses including but not limited to joinery, dating website, and phone games. He also cited Richard Branson as another example of a multi-disciplined business mogul who was a huge success.
You then started banging on about Hornblower and Watts and Tubular Bells and explained how Richard Branson was just lucky, and then got luckier. The admittedly-quick research I’ve done on Hornblower suggests that his engine was a failure due to patenting already in place to protect Watt’s engine rather than money, and that he nonetheless went on to great engineering successes in the field and was wealthy because of them, but I’ve only used Britannica and Wiki to check and obviously you’d remember better, having probably seen it first hand or something.
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7