I hadn't realized that so many weren't aware of one of the oldest legal tricks in the book, a play on ceteris paribus.

Simply put, one leads the listener to an expectation of what should occur when all things are equal, without making this obvious. Common sense dictates that a company with predictable revenues, attainable growth targets, and growing profits should be a no-brainer for the BoD of the standard company to grow shareholder value.

Repeated often enough, and the listener only hears what they now understand to be undisputed facts, so when "facts" are given no questions are asked as to their veracity. All of this works on a subliminal level.

Having made one believe that the optimum standard is a basic minimum, it is now possible to offer specifics of where the attainment falls short, presented as "fact".

One then goes on to critique all factors which the "reasonable person" would normally accept as mitigating, because, by the standard set, why would any competent BoD not be able to grow shareholder value without a constant revenue stream? And on it goes.

Another ploy is to raise questions as to the suitability of any counter argument and the appropriateness of the person making same ie the "emotional", "childish", and so forth descriptors.

All it takes are a few more to constantly repeat this unrealitic version of "facts" and the bait has been taken, hook, line, and sinker, and one never knew it, because, after all, all that is being done is the "objective" presentation of "facts". Or so one thinks!

As I looked at the post you offered as "factual", I ask that you review all such similar posts for bashing, albeit subtle or outright.

To be valid, any comparison has to be between "equals", not disproportionately skewed to maintain an appearance of objectivity.

.

.

.

Be well