Full context restored for unanswered questions.
On Feb 11, 2:39 am, Sansui Samari wrote: SS > I cobbed a bunch of lindstrom cutters and pliers SS > from a place I worked at years ago. They were SS > going belly up and tossed out boxes of the things. SS > I'm still using the few that I haven't given away SS > or broken. As long as you don't use them to cut SS > steal (hence the broken cutters) they are SS > awesome. I wish I would have grabbed more.
G > Were they going belly up because of G > buying only the finest, or despite of that? G >
G > At the liquidation sales for some bankrupt G > companies, sometimes I have seen hard, G > tangeable evidence of WHY they went broke.
lifeimitateslife wrote: lil > I think you assign "hard and tangible" to lil > others when it can be assigned to you. lil > Hard and tangible evidence that your lil > statistical analysis prowess ain't that great. lil >
lil > If the difference between buying $600 lil > worth of cheap s*it tools or $5000 lil > worth of long lasting, high quality tools lil > is a figure that you think could break lil > just about any company, < snip>
G > Are you saying that the outfit that G > Sansui Samurai described as having G > gone belly up did the right thing by G > buying $5000 worth of Rolls Royce G > hand tools rather than the Xcelite G > ones which would have cost $600?
lil > No. I am saying that your claim that it is any indication of a lil > causation for having gone bankrupt, is a fallacy, and it is.
G > That you disagree does not make something a logical fallacy.
G > Wasteful overspending and overcommitment G > in purchasing are common contributors to G > business failure. The number one cause of G > failure for small business is undercapitalization G > or excessive cost of money. ie Cost controls.
G > The stuff that "belly up" companies throw away G > or liquidate MAY VERY WELL reveal important G > symptoms of problems that destroyed them.
G > Like most people here I enjoy and appreciate G > truly good quality tools, FOR ME.
G > As others have mentioned, theftability, loss G > and abuse CAN MEAN that the Xcelite tools G > provide a better Return On Investment.
G > The nature of the work, the security of G > individuals toolboxes, the number of people G > who might potentially forget to return a G > tool are all variables that could decide G > whether the ROLLS ROYCE quality of G > nippers are a good or bad idea.
G > Fluorescent light bulbs at $ 4 a shot are G > great if your mortgage is totally paid off. G > If you're selling your home next week G > or if you're a landlord the ROI's not there.
G > Businesses OWNING their own facilities G > sometimes find that they are better off to G > sell their own building and rent it back G > because they can't charge off any building G > cost if they OWN the building.
G > I neither condone this nor like it, I just report it.
G > I LOVE well machined high quality tools G > and craftsmanship, but it doesn't always G > show up on the P&L sheet. I wish it did.
G > You seem to be applying personal taste G > to profitability rationalizations.
G > That's partly why "bean counters" are G > so widely disliked, isn't it?
G > My background is in small businesses G > where you wear many hats and can't G > blame "that other guy".
G > Were they going belly up because of G > buying only the finest, or despite of that? G >
G > Didn't I convey two alternatives there? G >
G > That the outfit failed: G > A. BECAUSE they buy "only the finest" or G > B. DESPITE buying "only the finest"? G >
G > It's like option A set you off so much that G > you overlooked option B.
G > Did you miss option B, lil ?
G > Judging from the way you took it very G > personally, I'm guessing that you worked G > somewhere where you groused about G > the s*it Xcelite nippers all day long....
G > How is that different from the G > MacIntosh kooks?
G > I wrote this BEFORE I read your posted G > story about exploding at a new guy for G > using your tools. Did somebody at the G > company give him permission to do so?
G > Telling the new guy to use your toolbox G > would seem to be fairly typical hazing or G > office politics considering your reaction.
-------------------------------------
G > That you disagree does not make something a logical fallacy.
AL > No, but the remark was incorrect because there AL > are plenty of examples of companies that have AL > no problem stocking or using expensive items AL > along with their other assets.
Those would fall under option B that I suggested from the beginning.
AL > Your remark had/has absolutely no basis in fact.
Please diagram your logic.
AL > And that "theftability" remark was about as stupid as it gets.
So extremely so that you didn't have to explain how, logically, right?