Your Assessment of Red Hot Pawn

Originally posted by FMF
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]

Clearly you are unclear about what Bob was or is talking about.

"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.

Originally posted by josephw
Clearly you are unclear about what Bob was or is talking about.

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.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, and why it has to be increased if this web site is to be able to continue its presence on the worldwide internet?

Surely 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.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

The "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.

Originally posted by josephw
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]

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.

Originally posted by FMF
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.

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 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. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
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.

This 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.

Originally posted by divegeester
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.

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 josephw
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. 😉

Where is Grampy Bobby to explain this and support you in your assertions.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

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.

Originally posted by divegeester
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.

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 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 divegeester
Where is Grampy Bobby to explain this and support you in your assertions.

GrampyBobby 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.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

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.

Originally posted by FMF
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.

You 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. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
You 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. 😉

You seem absolutely determined not to talk about the topic in hand.