Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Right, but so what?
I dunno, I just feel like it's a pointless exercise. Ward is not the guy I would have chosen, but I have no idea whether the guy I would have chosen was even interested in an interview. Nobody does. So I find it strange that people make up a scenario they believe could be true, and then get mad at that scenario. You're literally just making yourself mad over nothing at that point.
Would people be equally upset if Treliving called Boudreau, Gallant, and Laviolette and was told by all three that they weren't interested? Or maybe one of them was, but the salary was too high for our budget?
That's all. It just seems like people need to imagine a version of events so they can be mad at the result, which feels crazy. Same goes for the opposite, if anyone has decided the scenarios above are true to make them feel good about this.
|
But so what? I dunno, I'd prefer we be good. Is that not the point here? Or is the point just pretending we should trust the decision making process of an organization with basically no track record of success in three decades? Is there any other segment of someone's life where they would exhibit the same behaviour? Just implicitly believing that because someone made the decision, even though that person has consistently made that decision poorly previously, that it's the right choice?
It's just so odd.