"WHERE'S YOUR HAT!!!?

http://i775.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps333963df.jpg

And that has what exactly to do with us?

Some of you guys will latch onto anything.

Johnso and I will be 44. Lets hope for good times.

While that is interesting in and of itself, it probably has no correlation to our relationship with VA. Geography was more than likely the problem with their partnership whereas with us, not only will it not be a problem it will be an asset. In hindsight, VA and Singapore made zero sense.

Indeed. Let's hope. :)

There is the crux of the problem johnso. I am not saying, or even implying anything about the next 5 years numbers at all. Nor am I saying that the retirement numbers due to 65 are predictions '17-23.

THe statement about predictions on anything 5 years in the future was not talking about the actual number of age 65 retirements. It is talking about the advancements, or the potential thereof, created by said retirements. That is what myself and others were talking about. It is entirely too early (again, my opinion) to say those retirements equals automatic mass advancement. You seem to think it will. I say Too much can change. You are reading far too much into that "irrelevant" statement and making assumptions of what you think I meant, then making statements for me.

The connection you are making: that my statement about numbers 5 years out being irrelevant is implying in any way, shape, or form that I think the numbers over the next 5 years are correct or all we're getting ...is 100% incorrect. You are flat out saying that I believe that 578 retirements is all we are getting over the next 5 years because I think the 5+ numbers are bumpkiss. I have not said, implied or deduced that whatsoever. You are. As far as I know, we could get 2000 retirements between now and '17. But that is not my opinion. The fact is, only 578 are actually turning 65.

Well of course they might not shrink. Of course people may advance. I have not said anything is 100% out of the realm of possibility. I am stating the opinion that it is too early to say they will, because results in the future cannot be predicted in this volitile industry, especially results based on what is said now. Again, I have presented nothing as fact.

That still doesn't defend your implication that I said age 65's changing was a fact, and demanding proof of such.

Now now. Lets look in the mirror and not forget who started this roller coaster with the "weak argument" statement regarding an opinion, and false accusation that I was stating age 65 changing was a fact, asking for proof. I'll concede on the RIF comment.

I would trade places with either of you in a nanosecond.

Thanks for cutting out the last paragraph of my post. Goodnight. :)

Kumbaya...