[quote=@Stabby] I get that, and frankly anything i say at the moment is just a piece of logic that should be considered, but it shouldn't followed to an extreme. Some of these stupid big wigs will lay people off just to keep some of their own margins at what they were before because they are so interested in making money. So I'm all for cutting their ridiculous income, but you have to think of the backlash effects that it could and will have at some point. Plus what i'm saying right now is based off of what i know at this moment and the same goes for you, so there could be information out there that we don't know which could change our view on this whole matter. What i'm trying to say is that we should do it, but we should be cautious in how we go about doing it. [/quote] That's the thing with logic. If it's accurate, it can be followed to any extreme and still hold true. That risk is run by the company simply being in operation. If they are willing to take such drastic measures, the job isn't stable to begin with and isn't worth the anti-risk. I'm rather stubborn. My view can only be changed by a logical alteration (such as a situation being a coverup), but because we're arguing out of [i]principle[/i], the chances are near-zero unless you can point out a flaw in the logical reasoning. I tend to take very run-and-gun positions on things I think are important and deserve it, so I can give you that.