This is not about me, not about forums, and again off topic...
It is about your conduct making unsubstantiated claims orthogonal to observable facts. Then (still) trying to change the subject when asked for proof.
It is how we both learn if observations are erroneous, and someone is blinded by their idealism. How about 3 examples, that would be twice as easy right... lol...
In time... you may understand kid. Best of luck =3
It only matters to people that discover fictional vertical movement in a traditionally uninformed exploited role. The evidence often seems anecdotal, but a pretense of a meritocracy often drives the naive to act irrationally.
One may find a dismissive attitude is ineffective with data-driven decision makers. Inferring folks experiencing this phenomena are "nonsense" is just disrespectful. =P
Not really, it just seems that way to someone heavily biased by idealism.
I think you are feigning ignorance, and avoiding a simple question about backing up hilarious claims with a very low standard of minimal proof.
You can believe whatever makes one happy. However, if you want upper level positions it usually means leaving for other firms, and or founding your own entity as a board member.
Indeed, one has still failed to backup your assertion, and continue to engage in insolent off-topic trolling. The nonsensical detractors are a waste of bandwidth.
Best of luck, this conversation should have ended with the first Straw-man argument. bye... =3
It is about your conduct making unsubstantiated claims orthogonal to observable facts. Then (still) trying to change the subject when asked for proof.
It is how we both learn if observations are erroneous, and someone is blinded by their idealism. How about 3 examples, that would be twice as easy right... lol...
In time... you may understand kid. Best of luck =3