mikeyb45

In some cases it's probably true that too much blame is placed on FT and the bloggers for the death of deals. Often fraud probably has a lot more to do with it. However, it's hard to deny that any reasonable company won't keep a product around very long when it ends up costing them more money then it generates. A couple deals that come to mind - VRs at Office Depot and HIGC loading at WM. Impossible to prove with 100% certainty that the sudden wide exposure of these deals killed them, but I'd be willing to bet that a poll conducted on FT users would show >=80% agreement that it at least contributed.

There's also no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that human beings are contributing to global warming, but there is a very strong consensus among those who study such things for a living.

PaulMSN

But still you're positing opinion (ignorant opinion, because we are not privy to the calculations and aims of the businesses involved, nor do we know what profits or losses may be involved) and conjecture as some kind of proof. Yes, in some cases it is a possibility, but possibility is not proof, either.

Forget "beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- there is simply no proof at all as to why many extinct MS methods became that way. We simply don't know. One can operate on conjecture if one wishes, and that may be prudent, but conjecture is not reason enough for a person to attack others for revealing more than that person thinks is wise.

AlohaDaveKennedy

Depends what your definition of very long is. The US mint presidential dollar spewathon lasted long enough to create many frequent flyer millionaires.

Father-of-3

He said reasonable company. The Mint is a government monstrosity, not a reasonable company.