Point-Counterpoint

These are my closing statements on the "business" concept. While I stand by my views, I do acknowledge that that there is a different interpretation out there. I can see where it's coming from, but it's not what I'm talking about. The reason being, money comes in to play in the differing viewpoint, but is not in mine, which is probably the reason for the disagreement. So, as Judge Mills Lane says, "I'll allow it."

OK, so the movie theater was not the best example, well, sorta, it is. But Google is a better example. The theater is an example of a dual business. The business of showing movies, and the business in selling food. After thinking about it, since I worked not just in the theater business like my "business" partner, but also in the restaurant business, I got to thinking: if the concession areas are inspected by the same officers who inspect resaturants, for cleanliness and violations, then you could say they are in the food business. But you'll then have to classify primary or secondary, since the theater still makes money at the box office, albeit not much. So my view is: the primary is showing the movie, because that's why you're there in the first place, and secondary, the concessions, because that is from which revenue is generated.

Which brings me to my adjusted point, using Google, and the theater scenario, to a certain degree, as an example. And I think this is what my "business" partner was trying to say, but I still disagree, in part, because of the influence money has on the argumented point. Money shouldn't change what your business is, but since that is what all the fuss is about, the issue is dead because nothing will change.

Here's the new business concept:

"A company's product or service is it's business; If their income is derived from something else, then that is there business, But if the product or service makes money as well as something on the side, such as advertising, then it is a dual business, with primary and secondary focus".

And you can quote me, Webster.

See how money will change the appearance of what you're business is. Google business is it's search engine. It's income is derived from advertising. So many out there consider them them an advertising company. I don't. As do many others. We have our reasons. You have have your reasons. To argue is a moot point.

Which brings me to my next point: a generalization on debating an issue based on interpretation, then diagreeing, eventually arguing, and ultimately, making it personal.

After this debate continued in person, I noticed how it can quickly turn into an argument, which means although both sides have made there point (the debate), now both sides are more concerned with pushing there point (the disagreement), now they're repeating what they've already said, and not entering in new information, which makes it an argument. Neither wants to lose. The unfortunate part: when both sides get so frustrated, then it becomes personal. How? When one says, "Well, I think you're wrong".

Whoa. Where did that come from? I thought we were debating an issue that had different interpretations. I guess you thought yours was the correct one and there is no other. Well, I beg to differ. If there is another, it doesn't mean yours is not correct, it means that there may be others that are correct, also. You make your point but don't see mine, or at least acknowledge that another interpretation exists, or that since the other person is not budging, you're not going to pack it up and walk because neither side is going to win? You've just made it personal.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were a math teacher. And math is cut & dry. But when someone discovers a different pathway to the answer, and it's put to the test, and the answers always come up correct, the teacher doesn't care. You have to use his formula. Yours is not acceptable, even though it's been proven it works.

So in the interest of peace, I'm letting this one go. I stand my ground. Because that's what Chuck would want.