Name the point I ignored. I’m happy to address the point.
Honestly, at this point, I'd have to just point you back up to my first reply to your comment. You've moved the goalposts several times from when we started discussing WFH for employees (and not companies).
You are using multiple argumentative techniques to not have to concede a point, and not being intellectually honest in this conversation. We've drifted FAR away from the original topic of WFH.
At this point, I'd rather not waste any more of my time on this, but just instead point you back to our first comments and have you take a look at the like/dislike ratios, they are telling (though I'm sure you're ignore/excuse those away as well).
Honestly, at this point, I’d have to just point you back up to my first reply to your comment. You’ve moved the goalposts several times from when we started discussing WFH for employees (and not companies).
When given an opportunity to make your point, you offer up nothing but vagueness. You see what you hate in yourself in me, but I assure you you are really just seeing yourself.
Honestly, at this point, I'd have to just point you back up to my first reply to your comment. You've moved the goalposts several times from when we started discussing WFH for employees (and not companies).
You are using multiple argumentative techniques to not have to concede a point, and not being intellectually honest in this conversation. We've drifted FAR away from the original topic of WFH.
At this point, I'd rather not waste any more of my time on this, but just instead point you back to our first comments and have you take a look at the like/dislike ratios, they are telling (though I'm sure you're ignore/excuse those away as well).
When given an opportunity to make your point, you offer up nothing but vagueness. You see what you hate in yourself in me, but I assure you you are really just seeing yourself.
Also lol @ "like ratios" proving correctness.
Lol!
Whatever lets you sleep at night. Have a good day.