[tallhappy]

The point of percentage of imports among retailers, as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THIS THREAD is quite simple. The asertion is that WalMart built their empire on Chinese slave labor. If, during their growth years, they imported no more stuff from China than their competitors then that is clearly NOT how they built their success, which would make the assertion wrong.

This is not logically sound. It presupposes there can only be one succesful company. More than one could build an empire on slave labor.

This, though, is trivial.

My questions about your point were meant to address the boycott issue. My impression is that you are saying why boycott Wal-mart but not others when all have either built (or not built) their success on slave labor equally.

You talk too much. Simple and straightforward is best.

[discostu]

It is completely logical, in order for a company to have BUILT their succes via something then they must have used it BEFORE they were successful and have done so more than their competitor. If they and their competitors did the same amount of something then it must not have been how they built their success, otherwise their competitors would be just as successful.

I could give a crap if you boycott WalMart or any other company. I was asking questions about the commonly held assumptions on FR, boycott don't boycott not my problem, proof of assumptions is all I was after.

I tried being straight forward, and in reply you asked questions that were clearly answered, obviously it went over your head so I had to elaborate.