Exclusivity - inconsistent?

3 of 3

Cheapthrills

29-10-2010

Originally Posted by Uroboros1:
“Loona is obviously Paloma, licking her wounds at her early bathtime at the hands of his Omniscient Majestrix Lord Alan.”

21 posts all in Paloma centric threads, we should start a detective agency!

Uroboros1

29-10-2010

Originally Posted by Cheapthrills:
“21 posts all in Paloma centric threads, we should start a detective agency!”

Cheapthrills, anyone can start a detective agency, but it takes skill, talent and intelligence and hard work to be a proper detective. I mean do you truly, truly think you could have come to the same conclusion as quickly as I?

I don't think so, believe me that was some hardcore sleuthing I just pulled off there, the schizz of whizz detectives.

Paloma is a clever one, she had everyone fooled until I came along.

Uroboros1

29-10-2010

What gets me in the diatribe of Loona's loony rant is the statement "I was there."

Which means Loona is either Paloma, Sheena or Laura (unlikely given that Loona described them as muppets - unless this is very clever reverse psychology.)

The camera man, runner/director/producer (again unlikely since they were keen to paint Paloma as an inept muppet)

And Nick. So is that it? Is Loona actually Nick?

Uroboros1

29-10-2010

Originally Posted by Loona123:
“no but I was there & know what happened.

Think it is really unfair candidates being branded as idiots or lack of forward thinking as the editing suite can paint a different story

she was a shit hot candidate who was head & shoulders more cabable than a lot of others...”

True. But when you give the director as much rope to hang someone with as shit-hot Paloma handed them, you really are spoilt for choice. In fact the director would have had a harder time NOT painting Paloma as idiotic.

And I take it we'll see you getting fired next?

cartree

29-10-2010

Originally Posted by Cheapthrills:
“So she had the brilliant idea to sell in Soho, but not that many people in Soho were interested in buying the product?

And saying she had foresight to take big orders over small ones doesn't mean much seeing as her order finally amounted to zero as she didn't realise she couldn't give any type of exclusivity.”

Hee hee, some people really should put more thought into their arguments

Cheapthrills

29-10-2010

Originally Posted by Uroboros1:
“Cheapthrills, anyone can start a detective agency, but it takes skill, talent and intelligence and hard work to be a proper detective. I mean do you truly, truly think you could have come to the same conclusion as quickly as I?

I don't think so, believe me that was some hardcore sleuthing I just pulled off there, the schizz of whizz detectives.

Paloma is a clever one, she had everyone fooled until I came along.”

You're quite right and I can't do any of that, but if The Apprentice has taught me anything all I need to do is put cheesy quip soundbytes on the web page and pass the buck by delegating all the work

peely

29-10-2010

Originally Posted by Uroboros1:
“You can't offer exclusivity without prior consent of the maufacturer.

But whether they had it or not, no one with an ounce of business acument offers exclusivity to anyone for an amount as small as 200 units.”

No, but you can offer to talk to the manufacturer to ask for consent. However, exclusivity is only really good to go for when you are talking to a major/national retailer who is going to order thousands of units.

3 of 3