| Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:56 pm |
"It is my right to further decide that it is not worth having someone vacillate repeatedly between being pro-CEO to being anti-CEO to being quasi-CEO."
First of all, I changed my plan multiple times
based on how you guys reacted to them. You guys refused to cooperate with my 1st plan, so I had to create a 2nd plan.
It was not so much me continuously changing my mind, but that you guys were unhappy and resistant so I had to make up a new plan each time. In fact my new plan isn't that much different from my old one.
People who want to build oil, fmu, electric, or OA2A and have a salary index above 600 are still welcome(after I get other corps out)
The difference is that I am limiting the choices down even more and doing more to force people to move because I plan on replacing ceo corps with my own ceo's corps.
(The second change was due to the fact that none of you wanted to reinvest)
So saying that i went from pro-ceo to anti-ceo to quasi-ceo is a fallacious statement. In fact I have had the same stance towards ceos since the moment I came back from my break. (probably under your definition of quasi-ceo)
If i was anti-ceo I would be permanently raising taxes and blocking ceos
and if I was pro-ceo (under your definition)) I wouldnt have put forth my plan the moment i came back.
Also, the fact that you think you are "boycotting" by moving your corps is sort of naive seeing as I asked you all to follow my rules or relocate.