Yes, but you didn't present evidence that he didn't hurt his company. You presented evidence that he didn't hurt the company so badly that it didn't grow, but not that he didn't hurt the company.
> You presented evidence that he didn't hurt the company so badly that it didn't grow, but not that he didn't hurt the company.
Since no one has presented evidence showing that he hurt his company....
In my book, you don't get to complain about the quality of someone else's evidence unless your evidence is better. And no, "self-evident" doesn't count. YMMV.
At the risk of getting meta, I was complaining about the quality of the evidence for the assertion. I never made any assertions about the company suffering in any way because of this guy.
in past 10 years the stock has grown at an annualized rate of 19%, weathered 2008 crash extremely well and has doubled since crash. The guy is also still at the helm at the age of 60. He might be the worse a*hole possible, but whatever he's doing seems to be working pretty well.
Without intimate knowledge of the company's workings, plans and actions in those past 10 years, that logic is post hoc ergo propter hoc. The only thing we can say for sure is his jackassery didn't hurt the company as much as a rational person would think it might.
