Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you know the above before? I feel like you're either squabbling over minor details of a non-native English speaker's post or that these are things you dug out after the fact. It's obvious that he's referring to the Global 500 isn't it?
In other words, is it pragmatically obvious that he was actually referring to the Global 500? Not necessarily, given that there are many similar rankings, and the Fortune 500 has far more familiarity to those whose financial experience is exclusive to the Anglo-American axis.
It's very simple. If one refers to the Global 500, then you state so explicitly. There's no excuse for sloppiness in nomenclature, regardless of your language preferences.
Quote:
Also, should it not count for Paris if it's not in the tiny square miles of Paris the city but is a few or less than a mile away from its borders in La Defense or another one of the close by suburbs? City boundaries are sort of arbitrary anyhow--the actual City of London is a tiny square mile isn't it? The actual metro area is what matters.
The "City of London" is a specific term for the Financial District, so your argument here equivocates on terminology. When people refer to London as a city, they refer to the 8 million-population Greater London Urban Area. The London Metropolitan Area is a more expansive region comprising 12 million in population.
As I've already said; making comparisons using indices that are based upon politically-defined city and regional boundaries is as arbitrary as comparing cities using linear numerical tallies of such indices.
Quote:
For some reason, the wording you used earlier made it seem like Paris collapsed from 27 to 19 companies which could be misleading as that was not the case. Paris and its bordering suburbs such as La Defense--intentionally created to host large multinationals while still being more or less in Paris--is home to 30 of France's 32 Global 500 companies maybe 29 if you consider Roissy too far out.
This isn't really reflected by the figures. The same period seems to have seen a contraction in France's overall contribution to the Global 500; with the losses disproportionately represented within the city of Paris proper. The contribution of La Defense and abutting areas was relatively stable over that period
In other words, is it pragmatically obvious that he was actually referring to the Global 500? Not necessarily, given that there are many similar rankings, and the Fortune 500 has far more familiarity to those whose financial experience is exclusive to the Anglo-American axis.
It's very simple. If one refers to the Global 500, then you state so explicitly. There's no excuse for sloppiness in nomenclature, regardless of your language preferences.
The "City of London" is a specific term for the Financial District, so your argument here equivocates on terminology. When people refer to London as a city, they refer to the 8 million-population Greater London Urban Area. The London Metropolitan Area is a more expansive region comprising 12 million in population.
As I've already said; making comparisons using indices that are based upon politically-defined city and regional boundaries is as arbitrary as comparing cities using linear numerical tallies of such indices.
This isn't really reflected by the figures. The same period seems to have seen a contraction in France's overall contribution to the Global 500; with the losses disproportionately represented within the city of Paris proper. The contribution of La Defense and abutting areas was relatively stable over that period
Well, he was talking about cities outside the US and this is the World Forum. How is it reasonable to assume he wasn't going for the Global 500 but was instead a list of companies based in the US? This would be especially puzzling if you have heard of or know that the Global 500 list exists. It seems like you could have just corrected a simple mistake and not have gone on about it, right? So now that discussion is over.
The City of London is an actual legal entity, but everyone knows it makes more sense to refer to the metro as almost all major publications making comparisons such as this (GAWC and the like) use metro since there could be arbitrary physical boundary cut-offs. Just go for a proper comparison--London does well overall still. And the metrics might be arbitrary for cut-off points and how the weighing goes, but it's an attempt to rough out as best an estimate of how the real world functions. Legal boundaries of a city aren't.
There was a contraction of France's overall contribution as in it has one less in the metro, I think (I'm not sure if people were previously counting Roissy). The big change up in the past few years is that a lot of countries not Japan, the US, and not in Western Europe (as in these four cities) have made strides up the list with massive ones for China in particular. These four aren't guaranteed top four even in a decade from now.
Addendum: Let's look at the difference between the 2007 list right before the recession was really in effect and the 2012 list of this summer.
If you scroll through them, you'll see drops in most of the places I listed and gains (relatively speaking) elsewhere. I won't go through the metros one by one, but just a few choice countries (though Japan, UK, and France have the lion's share in the metros of their capitals).
Number of Global 500 Listings
US
2007: 162
2012: 132
UK
2007: 33
2012: 26
France
2007: 38
2012: 32
Japan
2007: 67
2012: 68
China (of course)
2007: 24
2012: 73
Also, realized there was an infographic that basically does just that:
Well, he was talking about cities outside the US and this is the World Forum. How is it reasonable to assume he wasn't going for the Global 500 but was instead a list of companies based in the US? This would be especially puzzling if you have heard of or know that the Global 500 list exists. It seems like you could have just corrected a simple mistake and not have gone on about it, right? So now that discussion is over.
Both indices list multinational companies that have prominent global footprints, so in the context of the misreferencing, it can be construed to be an argument, or at least an attempt at one, given that his other reasoning is also ostensibly defective.
I've already said that this relates to my unfamiliarity with the Global 500. I'm vaguely aware that the likes of Fortune Magazine, Forbes and the Financial Times do global company rankings using different criteria, but obviously not enough about them to recognise the mistake from the offset.
Quote:
The City of London is the actual term used, but everyone knows it makes more sense to refer to the metro as almost all major publications making comparisons such as this (GAWC and the like) use metro since there could be arbitrary physical boundary cut-offs. Just go for a proper comparison--London does well overall still. And the metrics might be arbitrary for cut-off points and how the weighing goes, but it's an attempt to rough out as best an estimate of how the real world functions. Legal boundaries of a city aren't.
Yet metropolitan areas are also arbitrary delineations. They are not defined consistently according to functional criteria but are usually determined on a basis of political convenience.
For example, the NY Metropolitan Area is a geographically vast 22 million-population, 30,000 sq km, tri-state area. If the London Metropolitan Area was to be brought into congruity with its geographic boundaries, it would engulf the south east of England and extend as far north as Northampton and Cambridge.
Quote:
There was a contraction of France's overall contribution as in it has one less in the metro, I think (I'm not sure if people were previously counting Roissy). The big change up in the past few years is that a lot of countries not Japan, the US, and not in Western Europe (as in these four cities) have made large strides up the list. These four aren't guaranteed top four even in a decade from now.
Are we looking at the same set of data? I'm going by the links provided in the original post.
2007's data shows 38 companies in France. 26 in the city of Paris proper, 8 in or around La Defense, 4 farther afield.
2012's data shows 32 companies in France. 19 in the city of Paris proper, 10 in or around La Defense, 3 farther afield.
Looking at your edit: I'm not in any way challenging the broader perspective that Western Europe, and the Anglo-American financial world is in regression. For what it's worth, the UK as a whole has seen a decline in its contribution since 2007, but London, which is what we're actually discussing here, has increased in its contribution.
Last edited by Citizen401; 12-15-2012 at 02:42 PM..
This is not so straightforward, given that the Fortune 500 also lists multinational companies alongside companies of indigenous origin, and people do have a tendency to appeal to this index to argue for the financial viability of companies that have headquarters off-shore.
I've already said that this relates to my unfamiliarity with the Global 500. I'm vaguely aware that the likes of Fortune Magazine, Forbes and the Financial Times do global company rankings using different criteria, but obviously not enough about them to recognise the mistake from the offset.
Yet metropolitan areas are also arbitrary delineations. They are not defined consistently according to functional criteria but are usually determined on a basis of political convenience.
For example, the NY Metropolitan Area is a geographically vast 22 million-population, 30,000 sq km, tri-state area. If the London Metropolitan Area was to be brought into congruity with its geographic boundaries, it would engulf the south east of England and extend as far north as Northampton and Cambridge.
Are we looking at the same set of data? I'm going by the links provided in the original post.
2007's data shows 38 companies in France. 26 in the city of Paris proper, 8 in or around La Defense, 4 farther afield.
2012's data shows 32 companies in France. 19 in the city of Paris proper, 10 in or around La Defense, 3 farther afield.
For what it's worth, the UK as a whole has seen a decline in its contribution since 2007, but London, which is what we're actually discussing here, has increased in its contribution.
Congratulations now you know! Global 500 exists. We'll drop it. Just thought it was bad faith to think everyone else is working on bad faith.
Metropolitan areas are arbitrary for a lot of reasons, but they are attempts to classify somewhat discrete interdependent communities--how that's done depends greatly on the rule set. I think the NYC MSA designation (from the population figures you're citing, it looks like you're doing the much more inclusive CSA) is fairly good as it's a pretty high threshold for commuter patterns between different jurisdictions and those areas are very obviously tied by the amount and frequency of commuter transit whether mass transit or personal transit. And yes, Western Europe and the US are not on top quite the same way anymore.
Did you know the above before? I feel like you're either squabbling over minor details of a non-native English speaker's post or that these are things you dug out after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Congratulations now you know! Global 500 exists. We'll drop it. Just thought it was bad faith to think everyone else is working on bad faith.
Why are you pointing this out as if it adds anything meaningful to the discussion or makes his points any less valid? He'd already addressed the misunderstanding in previous comments by the time you'd commented so there's nothing at all to 'drop'.
Just thought it was bad faith to think everyone else is working on bad faith.
Not at all. All I'm doing is assessing statements at face value, and making pragmatic inferences that are perfectly reasonable.
Quote:
Metropolitan areas are arbitrary for a lot of reasons, but they are attempts to classify somewhat discrete interdependent communities--how that's done depends greatly on the rule set. I think the NYC MSA designation (from the population figures you're citing, it looks like you're doing the much more inclusive CSA) is fairly good as it's a pretty high threshold for commuter patterns between different jurisdictions and those areas are very obviously tied by the amount and frequency of commuter transit whether mass transit or personal transit. And yes, Western Europe and the US are not on top quite the same way anymore.
Making comparisons between metropolitan areas will be arbitrary for so long as there is no consistent, systematic or agreed upon criterion system for defining them. This is irregardless of the fact that individual metro areas may, on an idiosyncratic basis, attempt to define their boundaries according to functional interdependencies.
Point 2 refers to the fact that you make a direct inference from the political isolation of the UK from the Eurozone to a negative measure of its global influence; which is inductively weak.
As for point 1, if you are responding to Valentro's comment and not conflating politics and finance, then your comment is pragmatically incoherent or pointless. If you are conflating the two, then your argument is inductively weak. Scylla or Charybdis?
Note, also, how both of your arguments are unreasonable regardless of your subsequent statement that France enjoys good relationships with emerging economies.
the way how you speak is more than funny, you are trying to look like a lawyer or something like that right ? you think I'm going to be lost in translation ?
Well, my point was clear, France enjoys very good relationships with emerging countries, we have seen it with Russia, where France being certainly the best partner in the Western world for Russia they are buying our military products, it means something, in India where their gvt finally choose our raphale over your typhoon, in Brazil where they are about to do the same, we also share a border with them and we are trying to develop connections between the 2 territories, and China is actually invest a lot in Paris, so I really don't care if you refuse to acknowledge it but that's the way it is, deal with it.
Quote:
Once again, note my comment carefully. Fortune 500 are companies listed in the US ranked according to their economic activities in the USA.
If you had opened the link I posted you would have been able to see that my point was about the global 500, we are talking about world influence and about London and Paris, so, WTF american companies would have anything to do with that ??? my original post if you want to check what I'm saying
Quote:
Your first argument here is non-sequitur, and also not referenced. We are not discussing the amount of "business activity" in Paris as a whole, but about its role in transactions and business deals that concern matters that extend beyond its shores.
As I said, the global 500 and the exports are here to show you that actually, Paris is a hub for foreign business activity...
Quote:
Your second argument is poorly substantiated and highly speculative.
cry me a river, where are your argument since the beginning of this post !
Tell me what do you not understand in : "you can see it in all the studies made to rank the cities"
You want me to show you how to use google ?
So, you'll find this one or here page 16 or here page 22... yes all these study are using the paris urban area, and yes all these studies are not focused on financial activities like the GAWC and other uselss rankings...
That's enough for you ?
Quote:
It's very simple: Valentro's comment references tourism as a means by which to rank cities according to leisure activity.
English language is not my mother tongue but it is not really what he said : "Paris is the most leisure friendly city in the world with I believe the most tourists and then London, New York, as well as Tokyo round out the top echelon of that as well with London being only slightly behind Paris on that. That's a draw."
The first sentence talking about tourism talks about London, so why does he need to repeat the same point ?
the conclusion I've made was he didn't talk about tourism, but more about leisure... not really my fault if he didn't put clearly what he has in mind...
Quote:
You cited the WCCR report to claim that Paris was far ahead of London in this regard. The WCCR report showed the converse to be true. You were wrong.
Not really because first, the city mayor of Paris knows certainly better how many international tourists are actually presents each year in his city, and secondly because seeing the souces used by the mayor of London, the CRT, tBoris made a mistake, an error of translation... they just put the number of international tourist who book a hotel... and in Paris, like everywhere, you can book something else than a hotel : CRT (reference used by the mayor of London) - page 7
The other figures aren't really necessary to disprove your claim. Ignoring your naively simplistic tallying of criteria, they show London has more restaurants, museums, clubs/discos, dance halls, theatre performances and a greater international presence; Paris has more art galleries, bookshops, cinemas, festivals and live entertainment venues.
Well, if you say so... Frankly, when bad faith is getting as obvious, I don't know what I can say...
I just give you the link of my post, you will maybe realise how ridiculous you are... coz frankly this is what you are here... ridicule mon petit... I like the way you put the "night clubs, discos and dance halls" category in extenso to make your list bigger ! post 76
About 30 criteria and Paris is ahead in 20...
Quote:
Even ignoring the tourism data, these figures alone show that you are incorrect, by any objective measure, to claim that Paris is "far ahead" of London in leisure.
I wonder what kind of guys you are ? seriously, the list is almost exhaustive, and you are doing a cherry pick, again, it's like you just wanted to see where London is better and turn a blind eye to the Laaaaarge majority of the criteria where Paris is ahead... Paris is way ahead and almost in all fields, but you keep claiming the opposite... I don't know, it has to be a kind of disease, the disease of the one who refuse to acknowledge the truth because of nationalistic pride...
Quote:
You need to provide references that use a consistent methodology to show a comparative difference between Paris and London. Randomly cut-pasting independently derived figures from the internet is not a convincing way to press your point.
yeah sure, Boris used the CRT, no one know the methodology of this organism... anyway, the city of Paris is claiming 18 millions... there is no debate, and no way for you to claim something like : 'it's not true"
Stay calm, the most of the time the figures you can find about tourism in Paris is the one of the city limits the inner Paris. Knowing almost half of the hotel are actually in suburbs, I can tell you the figures of the 13 or 18 millions is actually way way underestimated...
Quote:
1. We are discussing London and Paris, not UK and France.
2. The study data on cross-border expenditure is not exclusive to transactions made via Mastercard. Note appendix B for the study methodology. It appeals to UN audits/databases for estimates of traveller spending.
3. Page 5 of the report also shows London to have 20.1 million international visitors per annum, which is ahead of the figures for Paris (18.1 million).
Yes, inner Paris (105km2) against Greater London 1572 km2...
And frankly, you trust more Mastercard than the city mayor of Paris about that ??? what a joke you are...
Quote:
If anything, this is actually somewhat worse than gauging innovation through financial performance.
Large multinational companies patent everything within their means as prophylactic and defensive measures against other companies. In many cases, the portfolios comprise vast quantities of arbitrarily simple and trivial intellectual properties, a good proportion of which end up completely unused. Note, for example, the legal wrangling around Apple's IOS:
Why do you think the Patent Office is completely snowed under and backlogged with applications from the corporate world? Patent volume and global reach of portfolio simply reflect company size and role. They are generally regarded to be very poor measures of innovation.
Citations indices fall prey to problems that beset every other similar index of their kind, such as the use of the H-index in academic specialties. They are poor indices of quality.
No, wait, let me guess, you need to study the methodology, and a study showing London behind Paris cannot be serious ! right ?
Quote:
1. The video isn't 'of' Woody Allen.
It's the introduction of the movie 'midnight in Paris" which is a movie of Woody Allen, no ?
Quote:
2. I'm not intending to show Paris to be "boring". Note my comment very carefully.
Surely, your first video was the introduction of a dreamed Paris by the americans, a fantasy, a movie, with an old music ... the next ones are tourist area, not really shopping streets like Bd Haussman,... the opposite of the video of London... it's pure coincidence, I guess... but I note your comment very carefully, you are not intending to show Paris to be boring... no, no... not you ! no way !
Bad faith, talking with as much as complicated words you can to make it harder for me to understand and obviously to answer, playing with the words, yes sure... you are clearly very objective and honest... but the best in this post is again the cherry picking and the "Need the methodology" thing... and I don't talk about the Fortune 500...
Your comment would have been far more astute if you had not only pointed out the arbitrariness of politically-defined geographic delineations for cities and metro areas; but also the arbitrariness of citing simplistic numerical tallies of global index-listed companies as a measure of that city's global financial and cultural influence.
If you want to commit to comparisons between the UK and France, or wish to obfuscate the consensus definitions of either city through an idiosyncratic semantics, then feel free to go ahead. It doesn't impinge upon any argument being defended here.
I rarely laughed so much on this forum ! ! !
What a stupid post you made here ! let me be clear, and note carefully my comment, you, here, are not stupid, but your post is...
What a stupid post you made here ! let me be clear, and note carefully my comment, you, here, are not stupid, but your post is...
Is it astute enough ?
Not really.
If you're saying that it's not arbitrary to make city-vs-city comparisons based upon geographic delineations that are inconsistently or politically defined then you need to give good reasons and/or evidence why. This is because you are effectively stating that such boundaries are more meaningful or consistent than they actually are.
"What a BS.... I never said just ONE word about the eurozone... you can't read or what ? you can posting greek references you have got a serious problem of reading comprehension my friend. So I repeat, I'm not the one who tried to involve the political influence in this discuss... here is the words of Valentro : London's economy is more tied to the world, whether it's by extension of it's political clout in which case it's tied immensely with the United States & Israel as well as the financial markets of New York & Tokyo I'm not sure, what is the translation of a "political clout" ..."
"Well, my point was clear, France enjoys very good relationships with emerging countries, we have seen it with Russia, where France being certainly the best partner in the Western world for Russia they are buying our military products, it means something, in India where their gvt finally choose our raphale over your typhoon, in Brazil where they are about to do the same, we also share a border with them and we are trying to develop connections between the 2 territories, and China is actually invest a lot in Paris, so I really don't care if you refuse to acknowledge it but that's the way it is, deal with it."
Good morning Caseras.
1. Your key premise is that the UK has little political influence in Europe, and that its influence here falls short of that of France and Germany; a situation that is largely contingent to the UK's absence from the Eurozone.
2. You make a weak inference by induction from this statement to the UK's geopolitical/global financial weaknesses, given that you offer no other reasons in support of this claim.
3. It does not follow from the statement that France enjoys "good" relationships with emerging economies that Britain has comparatively poorer relationships with emerging economies. Comparative statements like this also need proof beyond simple testimonial claims.
I did read what Valentro posted. If you are claiming that only he holds the view that politics and finance can be conflated, yet you have motivation to respond to it as a pertinent point, then it follows from this that your own argument is either "pointless" or "pragmatically incoherent". That's fine by me.
Quote:
If you had opened the link I posted you would have been able to see that my point was about the global 500, we are talking about world influence and about London and Paris, so, WTF american companies would have anything to do with that ???
my original post if you want to check what I'm saying
As I said, the global 500 and the exports are here to show you that actually, Paris is a hub for foreign business activity...
So far you've been defending the importance of Paris to business activity in general or the importance of indigenous Paris-based businesses to the global economy. Paris' importance to "foreign business activity" is a somewhat different claim to this, and not really undergirded by citing indices of Paris-based global companies.
It would be far more appropriate, in this context, to cite the number of global companies that are not headquartered in Paris, but have prominent footholds in the city.
Quote:
cry me a river, where are your argument since the beginning of this post !
Tell me what do you not understand in : "you can see it in all the studies made to rank the cities"
You want me to show you how to use google ? So, you'll find this one or here page 16 or here page 22... yes all these study are using the paris urban area, and yes all these studies are not focused on financial activities like the GAWC and other uselss rankings... That's enough for you ?
Can you please dispense with the emotional hand-waving? It doesn't make your arguments any sounder, and it makes it embarrassing to read your posts.
You're referring to the wrong "argument" here. I was referring to your somewhat silly and unsubstantiated statement about the global financial system being primarily determined through a system of shadow geopolitical players and insiders.
Quote:
English language is not my mother tongue but it is not really what he said : The first sentence talking about tourism talks about London, so why does he need to repeat the same point ? the conclusion I've made was he didn't talk about tourism, but more about leisure... not really my fault if he didn't put clearly what he has in mind...
This is because the statements that follow from the first sentence aren't repetitions of the same point, but comparative clauses.
yeah sure, Boris used the CRT, no one know the methodology of this organism... anyway, the city of Paris is claiming 18 millions... there is no debate, and no way for you to claim something like : 'it's not true"
Stay calm, the most of the time the figures you can find about tourism in Paris is the one of the city limits the inner Paris. Knowing almost half of the hotel are actually in suburbs, I can tell you the figures of the 13 or 18 millions is actually way way underestimated...
And frankly, you trust more Mastercard than the city mayor of Paris about that ??? what a joke you are...
This is not a complicated idea: If you want to cite evidence that the volume of tourism in Paris exceeds the volume of tourism in London, then you need to provide comparative data between London and Paris that uses the same methodology, not only the figures for Paris.
Both the WCCR report and the Mastercard study use different criteria to determine comparative figures for both Paris and London; both of which, interestingly enough, show a statistically significant advantage for London. You need to cite similar evidence that provides a comparative advantage to Paris.
Interestingly enough, I do trust Mastercard more than the mayor of Paris. Mastercard use methodology consistent with peer-reviewed standards, and appeals to exhaustive UN databases on traveler data for city versus city comparisons. It makes its method transparent, and also has relatively less vested interest to favour Paris over London or vice-versa.
Quote:
"Well, if you say so... Frankly, when bad faith is getting as obvious, I don't know what I can say...
I just give you the link of my post, you will maybe realise how ridiculous you are... coz frankly this is what you are here... ridicule mon petit... I like the way you put the "night clubs, discos and dance halls" category in extenso to make your list bigger ! post 76 About 30 criteria and Paris is ahead in 20..."
It's "obvious" assuming the truth of your methodology, but your methodology is the problem here. Few would argue that simply tallying the criteria using a non-scoring system like you do is a remotely accurate or representative way of determining the cultural importance of either city.
Note your argument, for example. If you think that stating nightclubs and discos in separate categories is arbitrary, then one may argue that it is also arbitrary to make no attempt to grade these venues by quality and revenue, or to make distinctions between national and non-national galleries.
Quote:
I wonder what kind of guys you are ? seriously, the list is almost exhaustive, and you are doing a cherry pick, again, it's like you just wanted to see where London is better and turn a blind eye to the Laaaaarge majority of the criteria where Paris is ahead... Paris is way ahead and almost in all fields, but you keep claiming the opposite... I don't know, it has to be a kind of disease, the disease of the one who refuse to acknowledge the truth because of nationalistic pride...
If I was defending the proposition that London is culturally superior to Paris in every way, then it would be fallacious for me to list only the positives in favour of London. However, I'm not doing that; I'm refuting your claim that Paris is indisputably superior to London in leisure and cultural entertainment.
For this, all I need to do is demonstrate London to be ahead to Paris in a number of key criteria; and who would argue that restaurants, museums, clubs, theatrical performances and the like are not important?
Quote:
Ok, so something like that, is it better : The 20 most innovative cities in the world
London 11, Paris 3 No, wait, let me guess, you need to study the methodology, and a study showing London behind Paris cannot be serious ! right ?
That's certainly better than citing patent volumes, which 2thinknow explicitly deny using. Now you need to demonstrate that what you've cut-pasted from google is a more reliable gauge of innovation than the reference that argues to the contrary.
If you're defending a positive claim about Paris, and there is conflicting evidence, then it's your burden of proof to sift through the methodology and provide arguments to show that the data you provide is more reliable than that to the contrary; otherwise your argument then reduces to a fallacious argument from authority. What a shame, then, that 2thinknow are largely opaque with regard to their 3-point methodology; at least, without charging a hefty ($500) fee.
I personally think any objective attempt to measure the degree to which cities contribute to "innovation" is fraught with problems; such as differing standards of what actually constitutes innovation, and problems in trying to objectively quantify the qualitative aspects of innovation. I believe a far more accurate reflection of innovation can only be achieved through indirect measures, such as gauging human capital, competitiveness and cultural character.
Quote:
Surely, your first video was the introduction of a dreamed Paris by the americans, a fantasy, a movie, with an old music ... the next ones are tourist area, not really shopping streets like Bd Haussman,... the opposite of the video of London... it's pure coincidence, I guess... but I note your comment very carefully, you are not intending to show Paris to be boring... no, no... not you ! no way !
I don't think the video of Paris is "boring" at all. It's beautiful and certainly more charming than videos of crowds and traffic. You can appeal to subjective opinions all you like; it doesn't make it any less true that I was intending to show Paris at its best.
Quote:
Bad faith, talking with as much as complicated words you can to make it harder for me to understand and obviously to answer, playing with the words, yes sure... you are clearly very objective and honest... but the best in this post is again the cherry picking and the "Need the methodology" thing... and I don't talk about the Fortune 500...
By "bad faith", you mean someone actually dares to respond to your largely emotional, selectively perceptive and one-sided commitment to Paris by using cogent arguments? There's no duplicity here. I've admitted my error on the Fortune Global 500, not that it was really my mistake in the first place.
It's very simple. If there are words you don't understand, then point them out, and we'll go over them. If you have a problem refuting arguments in general, I suggest you commit to a study of this excellent resource.
Last edited by Citizen401; 12-16-2012 at 02:02 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the way how you speak is more than funny, you are trying to look like a lawyer or something like that right ? you think I'm going to be lost in translation ?
cry me a river, where are your argument since the beginning of this post ! 
