Once again, I took no 'offense' to any statement, I simply pointed out the incorrectness of your application of it. Once again feel free to show otherwise.
"I chose my words poorly" is a lame attempt at NOT admitting you were wrong. Nice try.
No. You said you are not interested in hearing it, because you have seen it from both sides of the fence.
I have asked you to expand on that to show your level of knowledge and you simply ignored that.
Strawman, consistent with your weak overall argument.
I'll ask again, what examples can you offer that are better than the 'piss poor' Packers?
Also, if you would like we can have the "Packers are a small market and that makes their financials irrelevant" argument if you wish but you will end up losing that one too and turn again to insults and attitude, so maybe its best we dont
I have not expanded on my knowledge of non-profits for two reasons. First, the statements were obvious ones to anyone who deals with non-profits on a regular basis. Second, more importantly, I wanted you to continue with your rhetoric to expose you for what you really are. As usual, you resort to extreme hyperbole, insult, putting words in others' mouths and lashing out to try to prove yourself to be right, regardless of how little you really know about a subject.
As I have said, I am not an expert in non-profit organizations. Stating that I work for a non-profit was simply to prove wrong the other db's lame accusation that I know absolutely nothing about non-profits. Because non-profits vary so widely in their source of income (grants, donations, revenue) and purpose, working for a single non-profit for two years, unless you are in legal or financials (which I am not), certainly is not a qualifier to comment on how most non-profits generally work. That said, for more than 13 years I was a vendor/consultant working in pre-sales, post-sales an support roles for hundreds of customers, many dozens of which were non-profit organizations. Their purchasing practices when purchasing technology and services for a
new solution (not replacing an existing solution) differ vastly from most for-profit organizations. They always include multiple vendors for bids, the financial people are always the ones who sign the SOWs and the process is almost always more drawn out, and including many more internal employees than just about any for-profit oragnization (with a few exceptions i.e. companies that work for the DOD). As different as the purchasing process is, it pales in comparison to how non-profits deal with releasing capital investments, like old equiptment. They are sticklers about the vendor picking up old equiptment from the premisis, and are very thorough on the documenting exactly where that equiptment ends up. Sure, I am no expert on non-profit organizations, but after more than 13 years of working with them and their for-profit counterparts, I can say with a very high level of confidence that they do, in fact, operate differently than for-profit organizations.
Twenty minutes of google research doesn't make anyone an expert on any subject. You don't always have to be the "smartest guy in the room". Not everything is a competition, and it is ok to to be wrong sometimes. Unfortunately, I hold little hope that your have learned any humility from this little exercise. Much more likely, you will lash out, blaming others for doing what is you own MO. If you do lash out, please keep it confined to the forums because if there are still any loved ones living with you, they've been through enough. You need help.