“Yup. You seem to think your “...one statement was wesley-worded, and had no logic as I pointed out” statement carries the authority of Holy Writ.”
So when are you actually going to point out where I’m lying?
Here it is again:
“More mixing of CEO Tim Cook’s reprehensible personal agenda with Apple company policy”
It isnt his “personal agenda”. He is CEO of Apple. Apple’s board is not protesting. Apple’s shareholders are not in revolt. His op-ed was penned and printed as him being CEO of Apple, where he pledges to use the resources and power of that company to fight against this and similar laws. Also this is not the first time he and his company has targeted this.
Now tell me where their “company policy” differs. It was a worded that way on purpose. Sorry.
You need to observe "the first rule of holes." Your assumptions are NOT self-evident.
Are you gonna tell us it was Steve Jobs agenda to drive out Steve Jobs during his first tenure at Apple?