Comments on: Carl Icahn To Jim Cornelius: ‘I Don’t Understand’ http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/carl-icahn-to-jim-cornelius-i-dont-understand/ News, Comment and Conversation Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:14:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Matthew Holford http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/carl-icahn-to-jim-cornelius-i-dont-understand/#comment-373412 Matthew Holford Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:24:28 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15456#comment-373412 Hmmm. I just read Cornelius' opening letter to Icahn (overlooked that, initially), but I was right: Icahn just rebuts every point. I don't really give a shit what they're bellyaching about, to be honest, but while this might be what passes for "professionalism" it is also known as "intransigence," which rarely leads to any kind of resolution, at all. Remind me, how did these halfwits ever get to the head of massive corporations? By being professional? That explains a great deal. Matt Hmmm. I just read Cornelius’ opening letter to Icahn (overlooked that, initially), but I was right: Icahn just rebuts every point.

I don’t really give a shit what they’re bellyaching about, to be honest, but while this might be what passes for “professionalism” it is also known as “intransigence,” which rarely leads to any kind of resolution, at all.

Remind me, how did these halfwits ever get to the head of massive corporations? By being professional? That explains a great deal.

Matt

]]> By: Matthew Holford http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/carl-icahn-to-jim-cornelius-i-dont-understand/#comment-373088 Matthew Holford Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:48:50 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15456#comment-373088 This is a really weird letter, from the perspective of linguistics analysis. Obviously, we don't have Trim Bossy Quibbler's (anagram), original letter, but it appears that Icahn has simply rebutted every point made by Cornelius. "So, what?", I hear you ask, and quite rightly. Well, if one wishes to invite a dialogue, and resolve misunderstandings, flat contradiction of what the other person is saying is not how it's done - because that puts all the pressure on the other person to have another go at stating "the truth". What one says is "no, that isn't right - this is..." and then one negotiates from there. Ergo, Icahn doesn't want to resolve anything, or has no negotiation skills. Matt This is a really weird letter, from the perspective of linguistics analysis. Obviously, we don’t have Trim Bossy Quibbler’s (anagram), original letter, but it appears that Icahn has simply rebutted every point made by Cornelius.

“So, what?”, I hear you ask, and quite rightly. Well, if one wishes to invite a dialogue, and resolve misunderstandings, flat contradiction of what the other person is saying is not how it’s done - because that puts all the pressure on the other person to have another go at stating “the truth”. What one says is “no, that isn’t right - this is…” and then one negotiates from there. Ergo, Icahn doesn’t want to resolve anything, or has no negotiation skills.

Matt

]]>