LurkerJ said:
EpicRandy said:
"Anyway I see no benefit for me in this deal" Yes, and that's perfectly fine, the deal never was going to please everyone and his not perfect for me either I see many cons to it. On a personal note, there might be bad and there might be pros, we might be for or against it, and to that extent we can use every generality/singled out property we see fit. But it's completely another thing to say it should be blocked or allowed, that should 100% be based on the ins and outs of the transaction itself and its impact on the relevant market under the current laws, and not idealistic ones, with fairness in regards to how similar case has been adjudicated in the past. The separation between the 2 concepts is hard to make sometimes and tends to be mixed together. I tend to focus much on the latter while public forum will, of course, tend to focus on the former, but focusing on the latter is the only way to remove oneself from the equation (not that I pretend to do that perfectly, but I try and I'm open to challenge if someone thinks my personal opinion was at play in my argument then we could debate if that's amounts to anything and readjust). |
Care to elaborate what you mean by the bolded? |
It only means that cases should be adjudicated in light of the current law, and not someone's thoughts of what the law should be. Furthermore when those thoughts vary from one individual based on opinion and beliefs and too often only scratch the surface of all implications at hand.
I'm not saying the current laws are perfect and could not benefit from a revamp using more up to dates ideals. But those ideals should first be refined in law proposal in due form by the processes that are in place.
Essay Pro