Originally Posted by
travelkid
GUWonder, in case you unintentionally missed it I repost. If you intentionally missed it we will know.
What are you looking for. If the objective is to "protect" deals, then first share what that means in objective terms. Once that is done, then the first suggestion is not to waste time on ineffective -- perhaps even countereffective -- measures to "protect" deals.
Originally Posted by
travelkid
Guess you are playing devils advocate. Is there a point throwing such questions if noone actually suggest that. And if you or others suggest it, why dont back it up with arguments?
That guess would be wrong. I asked what I did because I want to know why this approach is being taken if it is, according to some, so ineffective for the purpose of "protecting" deals and yet it is not being pursued even further if it is, according to others or even the same, so effective for various purposes mentioned by advocates of this motion. I would also like to know what kind of backing there is for aspects of this motion that may be revised to further restrict things on FT related to MR Deals and other parts of FT. Not all FT "gold" worth "protecting" is limited to MR Deals.