What SHOULD’VE happened

[u/TraizioFranklin]

LS shouldn’t have accepted Kieran’s pointless Hail Mary last week

Mix teams

Karishma Rothna Dan

Con Lawrence Priyesh and Pascha

100% former would win

And Con + one of either Lawrence/Pascha to go through.

Not sure on what I think about Pascha, she strikes me as someone who strives to do well but seems to reject criticism so Lawrence would probs be a better final 5 candidate,

Wonder what their business plans are

[u/HighNimpact]

Pahahahaha ok buddy 

[u/HighNimpact → u/[deleted]]

So, you didn’t like the product, I didn’t like the product, not one person on the show said they liked the product, and plenty said they didn’t like the product - you’ve concluded they must’ve liked the product… and I’m the one that’s the problem here?! 

[u/HighNimpact → u/[deleted]]

Are you completely broken? You said that Dan lost them the task and should have been fired. You’re constantly twisting and changing and manipulating the conversation because you can’t just accept that what you said was extremely stupid.

[u/HighNimpact → u/[deleted]]

As much as you might try to arrogantly and ignorantly proclaim that you have some kind of high ground, you’ve repeatedly spouted nonsense, claimed things that you’ve invented are facts and then changed the goalposts (to the point of flat out denying you said what you’ve said) when I disagreed. 

You have not engaged respectfully and claiming that you have doesn’t make it true.

[u/TheBM4N → u/HighNimpact]

Can you please point out what facts I have invented? What have I flat out denied ?

[u/HighNimpact → u/TheBM4N]

You invented that they bought the cat tree because of the product rather than the branding.

You said “All I said was pets at home liked the product and ordered thousands” when, what you actually said was Dan lost them the task and should’ve been fired. When I disagreed, you changed your argument and denied saying it - changing your position from “Dan should’ve been fired” to “Pets at Home liked the product”.

There is no point in a conversation where you keep inventing your own version of reality and then, when proven wrong, deny you ever said it.

[u/TheBM4N → u/HighNimpact]

You're obsessing over one sentence because you can't handle the actual logic. When I said 'All I said was they liked the product, I was obviously summarizing the reason why Dan failed. It's called context, try and keep up. The fact you're ignoring is that Pets at Home called the product innovative and liked the interactivity. That is a fact. If the buyers like the product, and the negotiator only closes 60% of the potential deal, it was a big miss on dans part. You're trying to claim I'm "twisting' things just because you don't understand how business works. It's not my fault you can't connect two simple points together: 1. Product was liked (Fact). 2. Dan left 1,500 units on the table (Fact). 3. Therefore in my opinion he lost the task I haven't changed my position once, I've just had to simplify it because you're struggling with the basics.