There seems to be a lot of sobbing and sniffling about a question that I was falsely accused of not answering: "What is wrong with Walmart?"

My answer was "nothing is wrong with Walmart in my opinion."

Now becaue the answer was not the answer required by the person that asked it, I am being berated and told that If I had any sense I would have known that the actual question was:"why Walmart could not make the 8% threshold"

Again I must note that there is an assertion in this question that makes it not realy a question but a Plurium Interrogationum, a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. Here is another explanation of the logial fallacy of the question.

What the question is stating is that "Walmart could not make the 8% threshold". That is an assertion of the person that asked the question which may or may not be true. I am not obligated to respond to an assertion made by others.

If the question was changed to a logically sound question like "Could Walmart afford to pay the 8% threshold" My answer would be" They could pay the 8% threshold"

If the question was "Why didn't Walmart pay the 8% threshold" my amswer would be: They did not pay it because it is not required of other companies"

So there is my answer for you to cry about some more.

Now where are the answers to my question that you are evading?

You really should read a book about the logical fallacy of ad hominem arguments and a book on etiquette.

In case you are not inclined, here is a brief description for your information:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
   1. A makes claim X.
   2. There is something objectionable about A.
   3. Therefore claim X is false.

A classic example derives from the Deutsche Physik movement, which argued as follows:
   1. Einstein claims relativity is correct.
   2. Einstein is Jewish.
   3. Hence relativity is false.

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness.

In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.

In Logic

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.

Examples:

    "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

    "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you are uneducated and poor."

Not all ad hominem fallacies are insulting:

Example:

    "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false, because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game."

This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Etiquette:

Etiquette, also known as decorum, is the code that governs the expectations of social behavior, the conventional norm. It is an unwritten code, but it may evolve from or into a written code. The Greek equivalent of etiquette was protokollon, protocol, the written formula for ceremonial. It usually reflects a theory of conduct that society or tradition has invested heavily in. Like "culture", it is a word that has gradually grown plural, especially in a multi-ethnic society with many clashing expectations. Thus, it is now possible to refer to "an etiquette" or "a culture", realizing that these may not be universal.

Etiquette fundamentally prescribes and restricts the ways in which people interact with each other, and show their respect for other people by conforming to the norms of society. Modern Western etiquette instructs us to: greet friends and acquaintances with warmth and respect, refrain from insults and prying curiosity, offer hospitality equally and generously to our guests, wear clothing suited to the occasion, contribute to conversations without dominating them, offer a chair or a helping arm to those who need assistance, eat neatly and quietly, avoid disturbing others with loud music or unnecessary noise, follow the established rules of a club or legislature upon becoming a member, arrive promptly when expected, comfort the bereaved, and respond to invitations promptly.

Roman etiquette varied by class. In the upper strata of Roman society, etiquette would have instructed a man to: greet friends and acquaintances with decorum, according to their rank, refrain from showing emotions in public, keep his womenfolk secluded from his clients, support his family's position with public munificence, and so on.

Violations of etiquette, if severe, can cause public disgrace, and in private hurt individual feelings, create misunderstandings or real grief and pain, and can even escalate into murderous rage. Many family feuds have their beginnings in trivial etiquette violations that were blown out of proportion. One can reasonably view etiquette as the minimal politics required to avoid major conflict in polite society, and as such, an important aspect of applied ethics. An etiquette is sometimes considered to reflect the underlying ethical code itself.

In the West, the notion of etiquette, being of French origin and arising from practices at the court of Louis XIV, is occasionally disparaged as old-fashioned or elite, a code concerned only with "which fork to use". Some people consider etiquette to be an unnecessary restriction of freedom of personal expression. Others consider such people to be unmannerly and rude. For instance, wearing pajamas to a wedding in a cathedral may be an expression of the guest's freedom, but may also cause the bride and groom to suspect that the guest in pajamas is expressing amusement or disparagement towards them and their wedding. Etiquette may be enforced in pragmatic ways: "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is a notice commonly displayed outside stores and cafés in the warmer parts of North America. Others feel that a single, basic code shared by all makes life simpler and more pleasant by removing many chances for misunderstandings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette


Now where are the answers to my questions? Are you evading them?