Please direct mr Turnas' attention to this site:

http://www.smalldog.com/PHPbb/viewforum.php?f=1

This is the CEO of an Internet Mac COmpany that is VERY Liberal and pisses me off many times with his diatribes.  How do I know this?  Because when I need mac stuff, that is where I still go. His products and quality of merchandise have nothing to do with his errant political leanings.

On His behalf, I will say he is at least rational in his beliefs.

No, Mr. Turnas, you are not a moderate or conservative.  You are truly far left and bordering on insanity from the little I have read so far.

And check me if I am wrong, but is not Steve Jobs openly democrat?  And proud of it?  And is not one of the biggest Mac users around, none other than Rush Limbaugh?

I think Mr Turnas just stepped into the twilight zone!

Of course, in order for me to be calling that person a moron they would already have to be someone who decides what to purchase based on the ideology of its CEO.

Amazon.com's CEO supposedly contributes to Democrats (I think it's Democrats).  I could care less. If they started deciding which books they carried based on the politics of the author, then I'd care.

Cause then you would not frequent them.  The product line of small dog does not change with who is president of the country.

A good friend of mine, who is very "far left" btw, write a lengthy essay that talks about the kind of people who use the phrase "you don't just get it" when they find themselves incapable of communicating or defending their position.  In his essay, he argues that most of the time, the "you just don't get it" line comes from people are are ultimately defending something that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

Similarly, your argument is, IMO, based on similarly weak positions.

Let's take a look at them:

1) Your argument that my articles aren't well written, logical, etc.  That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. I don't agree with it. And I am willing to submit that most people, looking through my entire set of work, would not agree with your position.

2) You argue that my articles, because of the way they're written, could damage my business presupposed that my job is the end all be all rather than merely a means to an end.  I'm already "rich" by anyone's standard. And that is not because of my political views.  But even if, as you argue, my postings damage said business, I would not stop writing because the success of the company is not my paramount objective in life.  Providing for my family is my paramount objective. And as long as the company, or some other job, can do that, then I am content.  Being able to express my opinions, even if they're obnoxious, takes precedence over some inmeasureable business performance goal.

3) It should be noted that I, nor our company donate to any political causes.  In other words, someone buying one of our products or services is not, even indirectly, contributing to a political cause they disagree with.  The entirety of my political ideology manifests itself on the web, such as here, where those who opppose me have an equal ability to respond with their own articles.  Do you think, for instance, a Michael Moore, lets those who disagree with him have a free place on their site to write opposing points of view? 

4) I don't think most people, reading my articles, would consider what I write "ranting and raving".  Therefore, your conclusions do not pan out.  I.e. I certainly don't have a lot of pent up anger. I'm not even sure what I would be angry about. 

5) Regarding "Not being taken seriously". Our company is certainly taken seriously in the industries it is in IMO. Though quantifying "being taken seriously" is difficult.  I just returned from a media tour and given the instant results of that media tour, it sure FELT like we were being taken seriously.  

Having appeared in Time Magazine, US News & World Report, Newsweek, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC (ironically not FOXNews) in the past 6 months I certainly feel like we've been taken seriously.  In fact, our last computer game is about to be announced as having been nominated for Best Strategy Game of 2004 by the biggest computer games magazine.  Object Desktop won PC Magazine's 2004 Editor's Choice Award at the same time our last PC game won Editor's Choice Award from a major gaming publication.

But even if your assertion were true, that we aren't taken "seriously", it would certainly not be because of my political writings. 

Ultimately, it all comes down to percentages. Some percentage of people will read what I write and think of it as "mindless troll baiting".  However, I would assert that that percentage is very low. I also given how far off you were in psychoanalysing me in that other discussion where you asserted I was a Keirsey iNTj (I'm not) I think it is you that are reading far too much into what you read.

JTurnas:  No, I'm actually not an INTJ.

Moreover, your assessment of me is not just wrong but incredibly wrong.   I don't think anyone has ever described me as a "loner" before.  As I mentioned in another thread, I've taken that test before and it always comes out as eNTj or as a "Guardian" type. 

As someone else observed, it sounds like you are projecting.   Frankly, you must be one of the least observatant people (certainly the least empathic) if you conclude I'm introverted.  I am many things but not introverted.

Whether I'm "cut out"  to be a CEO or not in your opinion is ultimately irrelevant.  I've been a CEO most of my adult life having built a successful company in that time. 

BTW, if you want to read what the Field Marshell (eNTj) profile you can learn more about it here:

http://keirsey.com/personality/ntej.html

Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition, it is marshalling or situational organizing role that reaches the highest development in Fieldmarshals. As this kind of role is practiced some contingency organizing is necessary, so that the second suit of the Fieldmarshal's intellect is devising contingency plans. Structural and functional engineering, though practiced in some degree in the course of organizational operations, tend to be not nearly as well developed and are soon outstripped by the rapidly growing skills in organizing. But it must be said that any kind of strategic exercize tends to bring added strength to engineering as well as organizing skills.

As the organizing capabilities the Fieldmarshal increase so does their desire to let others know about whatever has come of their organizational efforts. So they tend to take up a directive role in their social exchanges. On the other hand they have less and less desire, if they ever had any, to inform others.

Hardly more than two percent of the total population, the Fieldmarshals are bound to lead others, and from an early age they can be observed taking command of groups. In some cases, Fieldmarshals simply find themselves in charge of groups, and are mystified as to how this happened. But the reason is that Fieldmarshals have a strong natural urge to give structure and direction wherever they are -- to harness people in the field and to direct them to achieve distant goals. They resemble Supervisors in their tendency to establish plans for a task, enterprise, or organization, but Fieldmarshals search more for policy and goals than for regulations and procedures.

They cannot not build organizations, and cannot not push to implement their goals. When in charge of an organization, whether in the military, business, education, or government, Fieldmarshals more than any other type desire (and generally have the ability) to visualize where the organization is going, and they seem able to communicate that vision to others. Their organizational and coordinating skills tends to be highly developed, which means that they are likely to be good at systematizing, ordering priorities, generalizing, summarizing, at marshalling evidence, and at demonstrating their ideas. Their ability to organize, however, may be more highly developed than their ability to analyze, and the Fieldmarshal leader may need to turn to an Inventor or Architect to provide this kind of input.

Fieldmarshals will usually rise to positions of responsibility and enjoy being executives. They are tireless in their devotion to their jobs and can easily block out other areas of life for the sake of their work. Superb administrators in any field -- medicine, law, business, education, government, the military -- Fieldmarshals organize their units into smooth-functioning systems, planning in advance, keeping both short-term and long-range objectives well in mind. For the Fieldmarshals, there must always be a goal-directed reason for doing anything, and people's feelings usually are not sufficient reason. They prefer decisions to be based on impersonal data, want to work from well thought-out plans, like to use engineered operations -- and they expect others to follow suit. They are ever intent on reducing bureaucratic red tape, task redundancy, and aimless confusion in the workplace, and they are willing to dismiss employees who cannot get with the program and increase their efficiency. Although Fieldmarshals are tolerant of established procedures, they can and will abandon any procedure when it can be shown to be ineffective in accomplishing its goal. Fieldmarshals root out and reject ineffectiveness and inefficiency, and are impatient with repetition of error.

The most astounding thing about your misreading is the idea that you think I'm introverted.  Many JUers here, including myself, have taken a host of on-line personality tests. 

It takes a certain level of arrogance to believe that you can judge what someone's personality profile is by reading a blog (or even meeting them in person). I am fairly good at figuring out what people tick but I would never presume to fit someone into a category purely by observation (in the real world) let alone from reading their writings.