Originally posted by FMFClearly you are unclear about what Bob was or is talking about.
He said [b]"And doesn't it seem that we all win when Red Hot Pawn succeeds in winning more market share". It seems pretty clear that he was talking about "market share".[/b]
"And doesn't it seem that we all win when Red Hot Pawn succeeds in winning more market share".
The "market share" reference is about increased interest in RHP by increasing civil discourse in the forums. Notice in the quote above that the idea is about all of us "winning" as a result of increased market share, market share meaning increased interest as a result of more civil discourse. The idea of us all winning is the operative meaning of the quote above. A meaning which escapes trolls who are only interested in their own success. All trolls are narcissists at heart.
13 Mar 16
Originally posted by josephwI don't think so. Read page 2 again. Grampy Bobby clearly and unequivocally suggested that RHP's market share has to be increased if the web site is to be able to continue its presence on the worldwide internet as a viable online correspondence chess site with public forums. That is what he actually said.
Clearly you are unclear about what Bob was or is talking about.
Originally posted by FMFSurely small businesses (relative) are more interested in stable revenue streams rather than market share. I don't see why Grampy Bobby doesn't want to discuss this, nor why Josephw is getting so hot under his collar about it.
Yes, and why it has to be increased if this web site is to be able to continue its presence on the worldwide internet?
13 Mar 16
Originally posted by josephwThe "winning" was in reference to the web site's ability to continue as a viable presence on the internet depending on there being "more market share". Therefore 'losing' would be if the web site were no longer viable and no longer able to continue. You should go back and read page 2 again.
Notice in the quote above that the idea is about all of us "winning" as a result of increased market share, market share meaning increased interest as a result of more civil discourse. The idea of us all winning is the operative meaning of the quote above.
Originally posted by josephwI think what is clear is that neither you nor Grampy Bobby understand the concept or fiscal dynamics of market share, especially when the focus is a (relatively) small business such as RHP.
Clearly you are unclear about what Bob was or is talking about.
[b]"And doesn't it seem that we all win when Red Hot Pawn succeeds in winning more market share".
The "market share" reference is about increased interest in RHP by increasing civil discourse in the forums. Notice in the quote above that the idea is about all of us "winning" as a resul ...[text shortened]... scapes trolls who are only interested in their own success. All trolls are narcissists at heart.[/b]
You resorting to calling people names and flinging accusations of trolling and narcisism is just making you look silly.
Originally posted by FMFYou're still confused aren't you. It's the "market share" of interest in a civil discourse in the forums that Bob is suggesting will enable RHP to continue its presence on the worldwide internet as a viable correspondence chess site with public forums.
I don't think so. Read page 2 again. Grampy Bobby clearly and unequivocally suggested that RHP's market share has to be increased if the web site is to be able to continue its presence on the worldwide internet as a viable online correspondence chess site with public forums. That is what he actually said.
A sentiment I'm not exactly in agreement with. Trolls need someplace to go, and God knows there's enough of them in the world! 😉 So I don't think there's a viable threat to the demise of RHP due to decreased use by rational people. 😉
13 Mar 16
Originally posted by josephwThis quite simply is not what he said on page 2 of this thread. RHP's presence on the internet is still viable even if it does not increase its market share. Grampy Bobby, on page 2, clearly thinks otherwise. He's let you flounder on this topic on his behalf because, I suspect, he would have difficulty himself explaining what he wrote on page 2.
You're still confused aren't you. It's the "market share" of interest in a civil discourse in the forums that Bob is suggesting will enable RHP to continue its presence on the worldwide internet as a viable correspondence chess site with public forums.
Originally posted by divegeesterSure. Why don't you provide a professional lecture on the fiscal dynamics of market share?
I think what is clear is that neither you nor Grampy Bobby understand the concept or fiscal dynamics of market share, especially when the focus is a (relatively) small business such as RHP.
You resorting to calling people names and flinging accusations of trolling and narcisism is just making you look silly.
Don't lecture me about flinging accusations geester. It makes you look like a flaming silly hypocrite.
13 Mar 16
Originally posted by josephwWhere is Grampy Bobby to explain this and support you in your assertions.
You're still confused aren't you. It's the "market share" of interest in a civil discourse in the forums that Bob is suggesting will enable RHP to continue its presence on the worldwide internet as a viable correspondence chess site with public forums.
A sentiment I'm not exactly in agreement with. Trolls need someplace to go, and God knows there's enough ...[text shortened]... t think there's a viable threat to the demise of RHP due to decreased use by rational people. 😉
Originally posted by josephwI'm not lecturing you on either market share nor flinging accusations. I'm pointing out that Grampy Bobby seems to be insufficiantly informed on the former and you an expert in the latter.
Sure. Why don't you provide a professional lecture on the fiscal dynamics of market share?
Don't lecture me about flinging accusations geester. It makes you look like a flaming silly hypocrite.
Originally posted by divegeesterThen ask yourself why your perceptions are askew, as your criticisms are of anyone that actually knows how to debate in a public forum without acting like a troll.
I'm not lecturing you on either market share nor flinging accusations. I'm pointing out that Grampy Bobby seems to be insufficiantly informed on the former and you an expert in the latter.
You and your comrades in arms in this forum make it your business to level the harshest criticisms against a man who hasn't said anything negative about a single one of you, but you join in with them every chance you get to harangue the living day lights out of one harmless old guy who is merely trying to utilize this forum for what it was intended for. Where I come from we call those who practice that sort of thing a pack of bullying peckerheads. In a word, trolls.
Originally posted by divegeesterGrampyBobby is a hundred times the Christian you and I are combined. He's not going to engage with you if you can't be civilized about the way you behave yourself in this forum. He made his case, but you and the others are too damn dense to have a meaningful conversation with because you can't get over your innate desire for self righteousness.
Where is Grampy Bobby to explain this and support you in your assertions.
Originally posted by josephwPerhaps it is because your mind is filled with this kind of stuff that you've been talking nonsense about what was actually said about market share on page 2.
Then ask yourself why your perceptions are askew, as your criticisms are of anyone that actually knows how to debate in a public forum without acting like a troll.
You and your comrades in arms in this forum make it your business to level the harshest criticisms against a man who hasn't said anything negative about a single one of you, but you join in wit ...[text shortened]... we call those who practice that sort of thing a pack of bullying peckerheads. In a word, trolls.
Originally posted by FMFYou know FMF, my dad used to say on occasion when appropriate that "you can't stretch a gnat's ass over a telephone pole". I think you just proved that wrong. 😉
Perhaps it is because your mind is filled with this kind of stuff that you've been talking nonsense about what was actually said about market share on page 2.