Competitive intelligence in the Premier League business

[Андрей Захаров]

Yeah ... It’s especially interesting to read about "court certificates" ...

What's wrong? Is the term wrong? But the essence is true. And you try to attract VTsIOM, upholding your concepts. Really. No chatter. In the end, you will receive a certificate from the state. Its name does not matter.

Although the question has been correctly posed about the desire or unwillingness to participate in the discussion of individual topics ... It seems that each of those who took part in the discussion of this particular topic made its own conclusion on the topic brought up for discussion ... And the conclusion for each is correct ...

Exactly. And therefore, it makes no sense to repeat the same thing many times.

But I note one important point, in my opinion. I embody my ideas. If necessary, then in the courts. It is possible that the first tweet was used as evidence in my trial (the first for a Russian court). And it was me, and not someone else, who arranged for the Bailiffs to enforce the court decision on the Internet when they simply had no idea how to do it.

But when I see how a forum a hundred times tediously expresses an opinion that the author cannot support in court, despite the obvious benefit of success for myself, I am skeptical about this phenomenon. And I think that let him in a personal discussion and not take time. It will be better for everyone.

As they say in one wise proverb, "He who speaks, he sows ... he who listens, he collects ..." Here we will choose, sow or collect ...
In the appendix, so to speak, a song about sowing, collecting ... Wise by the way ... Though "enemy" ...

In my opinion, you are a little mistaken. An online forum is a place for communication. Personally, for example, I need feedback from this communication. New approaches to work, for example. New accents.
Criticism, by the way, is also needed, but, firstly, it is well-reasoned, and, secondly, the same thing is not a hundred times. He expressed a position, discussed it. They agreed - very well. We didn’t agree - we finished this and went on.
I see it like that.

You’re right ... You don’t have to talk about the same thing a hundred times ... And as for the wording, the wording is just (you can say including) and conclusions are drawn on whether a person knows something about what he is talking about or not ... Something like this ...

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

You are right ... You don’t have to do the same thing a hundred times ...

+1

And about the wording, the wording just (one can say including) also draws conclusions on whether a person knows something about what he is talking about or not ... Something like this ...

I have experience planning successful litigation. Including resonant and partly without precedents. It is a fact. And this fact contradicts what you just said.
How I achieve the result, despite the fact that I am not a lawyer - I will tell, because this is directly related to the topic of the sub-forum.

I believe that at the same time it will become more clear to you what you are mistaken in the text I have quoted now. And maybe this will help you expand the tools of your work.

So.

The basis of success in my work is a combination of information and legal methods of influence. It is a combination of both. Because each of them has its advantages, but also has its drawbacks. So, for example, legal methods make it possible to put a bullet in the question, but they are very slow. Information - on the contrary.

For this reason, for example, with information cover, law enforcement agencies are much more successful than without it. Without informational cover, law enforcement officers often manage to drive away or block through influence on public opinion.

The mere need to combine two different types of exposure requires understanding both. But it is impossible to be a deep professional in everything. Therefore, if in terms of information impacts I can cope myself, then in legal terms I call a specialist. He writes statements of claim, monitors compliance with procedures by both our side and opponents, and performs the rest of this kind of work, which requires special training.
But! In order for him to do this work, he needs to set a strategy within which he will work. And so I set this strategy. I have quite sufficient theoretical training for this and even more practical.

Therefore, when I say: you are likely to lose the process with VTsIOM and the result will be a resonant failure, not a resonant victory, and you will receive a certificate from the state that your concept is incorrect - I say the truth in essence. The inquiry form, lawsuits, etc. are none of my business. They will be made by those who are supposed to, fortunately, there are enough such specialists.

By the way, we work extensively with civil lawyers and understand each other very well. I am developing the information part, and to some extent - the conceptual one. The degree to which I develop a legal strategy in each case depends on who called whom in a particular case - I am a lawyer or he is me.

In the same way, I sometimes tell the client: "The result of this trial will be a certificate from the state that they will not return the money" - and they understand me. because the customer is important in the meaning of what is happening, and not in its formality, and especially not in special terms.

I hope I clearly explained the situation?

 

[Арсен]

For example, I'm interested! I read, study all sections and learn for myself the most interesting and what I need.

 

[Андрей Захаров]

You are right ... You don’t have to do the same thing a hundred times ...

+1

And about the wording, the wording just (one can say including) also draws conclusions on whether a person knows something about what he is talking about or not ... Something like this ...

I have experience planning successful litigation. Including resonant and partly without precedents. It is a fact. And this fact contradicts what you just said.
How I achieve the result, despite the fact that I am not a lawyer - I will tell, because this is directly related to the topic of the sub-forum.

I believe that at the same time it will become more clear to you what you are mistaken in the text I have quoted now. And maybe this will help you expand the tools of your work.

So.

The basis of success in my work is a combination of information and legal methods of influence. It is a combination of both. Because each of them has its advantages, but also has its drawbacks. So, for example, legal methods make it possible to put a bullet in the question, but they are very slow. Information - on the contrary.

For this reason, for example, with information cover, law enforcement agencies are much more successful than without it. Without informational cover, law enforcement officers often manage to drive away or block through influence on public opinion.

The mere need to combine two different types of exposure requires understanding both. But it is impossible to be a deep professional in everything. Therefore, if in terms of information impacts I can cope myself, then in legal terms I call a specialist. He writes statements of claim, monitors compliance with procedures by both our side and opponents, and performs the rest of this kind of work, which requires special training.
But! In order for him to do this work, he needs to set a strategy within which he will work. And so I set this strategy. I have quite sufficient theoretical training for this and even more practical.

Therefore, when I say: you are likely to lose the process with VTsIOM and the result will be a resonant failure, not a resonant victory, and you will receive a certificate from the state that your concept is incorrect - I say the truth in essence. The inquiry form, lawsuits, etc. are none of my business. They will be made by those who are supposed to, fortunately, there are enough such specialists.

By the way, we work extensively with civil lawyers and understand each other very well. I am developing the information part, and to some extent - the conceptual one. The degree to which I develop a legal strategy in each case depends on who called whom in a particular case - I am a lawyer or he is me.

In the same way, I sometimes tell the client: "The result of this trial will be a certificate from the state that they will not return the money" - and they understand me. because the customer is important in the meaning of what is happening, and not in its formality, and especially not in special terms.

I hope I clearly explained the situation?

So you and I saw Eugene, the differences ... I’m just a lawyer (with corresponding full-time higher education, of course ... Received back in the days of the USSR, in 1983), with experience in practical work in various fields of law (civil, administrative, criminal) over 30 years .. (over 14 years of purely investigative work in the apparatus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs ...). In addition to all this and the BH (after the demobilization, so to speak) ... (I’ve held the BH for about 13 years, being, as you said SP, professionally dealing with NPV issues). At the same time, I use my practice as a lawyer in the practice of working as a black hole (or vice versa, you won’t understand: lol And at the same time I’m familiar with the judicial system, believe me not by hearsay ... Therefore, I belong to people who incorrectly give certain formulations in the manner described above ... And of course you can give advice, sometimes even need to ... But only in those cases when they are asked ... Somehow So...

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

So you and I saw Eugene, the differences ... I’m just a lawyer (with corresponding full-time higher education, of course ... Received back in the days of the USSR, in 1983), with experience in practical work in various fields of law (civil, administrative, criminal) over 30 years .. (over 14 years of purely investigative work in the apparatus of the Ministry of Internal Affairs ...). In addition to all this and the BH (after the demobilization, so to speak) ... (I’ve held the BH for about 13 years, being, as you said SP, professionally dealing with NPV issues). At the same time, I use my practice as a lawyer in the practice of working as a black hole (or vice versa, you won’t understand: lol And at the same time I’m familiar with the judicial system, believe me not by hearsay ... Therefore, I relate to people who incorrectly give certain formulations in the manner described above ...

Most likely, we are simply working at different levels of the organization of work. I plan and implement it, including with the help of attracted specialists who perform an important but narrow piece of work, and you, as I understand it, are the very specialist who does this.
Accordingly, you cannot, or do not want to understand, why the strategy is important not the accuracy of the wording, but the accuracy of the direction.
This is neither good nor bad, it is simply, apparently, such a fact arising from such differences.

I will explain with a concrete example why it is much more correct to speak in plain language, without terminology - when you need not to show off to someone, but quickly and correctly convey the essence of the issue.

Here is a medically fairly correct text:

Due to irreversible ischemia, clinically manifested by muscle contracture, a choice is made between exarticulation of the left knee joint and amputation of the left lower limb according to the Gritti method.

And here is the same, understandable and really important for the patient:

Your leg will be cut off. The left. Knee-deep.

And of course you can give advice, sometimes you even need to ... But only in those cases when they are asked ... Something like this ...

When they say the same thing to you for the 300th time (it is not clear why, if this issue has already been discussed 299 times before), it seems quite logical to invite such a persistent interlocutor to stop wagging his tongue and simply prove his point of view in practice. Especially - when this, if successful, clearly makes him rich.
But there is another, simpler option, and we discussed it with you, reaching a consensus: not to talk about the same "in circles."

 

[Бюро Рысь]

When they say the same thing to you for the 300th time (it is not clear why, if this issue has already been discussed 299 times before), it seems quite logical to invite such a persistent interlocutor to stop wagging his tongue and simply prove his point of view in practice. .

You have already been offered to prove yourself in practice, but you refused, so it’s somehow not appropriate now to offer it to others. I have a huge request for you, could you behave more courteously and more correctly with the forum users, especially with people who have more than 5 years of work experience! From the side it does not look very beautiful.

 

[Бюро Рысь]

And some topics are really worthy of attention. Opinions may differ from everyone, but this does not mean that someone is cooler or not, every specialist in his industry, and here we are in order to combine our efforts and learn from each other, and not impose our point of view on another! Everyone will find for themselves what is interesting and necessary for him!

 

[Арсен]

And some topics are really worthy of attention. Opinions may differ from everyone, but this does not mean that someone is cooler or not, every specialist in his industry, and here we are in order to combine our efforts and learn from each other, and not impose our point of view on another! Everyone will find for themselves what is interesting and necessary for him!

I fully support Ruslan, that's exactly what I do! : D

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Well, Eugene, we’ll talk specifically ... (although there’s not much more specific before) ... You can answer the question, what is the legal form of organization to which you (or not necessarily you personally, but someone), how a specialist, is a full-time employee and collects information through surveys (conversations), examinations (looked) -OOO.OAO, etc. or SP ... (what are the OKEVD codes of these enterprises .... Or, such collection of information is carried out by order of any persons , a person who is not an employee of any of the above organizations and do it as an individual (private) person ... (this is necessary for a detailed analysis of the legitimacy of the activities of Kyrgyz specialists, as was mentioned earlier and to determine the legitimacy of their actions-compared with BH) ... If you answer this question, I think we will continue the discussion ... Let's try, so to speak, to put everything on the shelves ... There will be no discussion ...

 

[Ющук Евгений Леонидович]

You have already been offered to prove yourself in practice, but you refused, so it’s somehow not appropriate now to offer it to others.

Here I show a lot of examples from practice, including mine.

As for your request to punish villains unknown to me, I already answered you that I give a lot of tools so that you can do it yourself. Go and do it yourself.

In addition, I defend my point of view in practice: I am already doing what I am talking about. The very fact of my existence in this capacity confirms: I work legally, claims about this are unfounded. In response, I suggested that the opponents defend, also in practice, their point of view.
Well, I repeat: the proposal about VTsIOM arose on God who knows what a turn of meaningless repetitions. Not earlier. Because VTsIOM fully fits into the accusations "he violates the laws on the horde and the BREV", which has been repeatedly heard here. And also because the victory over VTsIOM would be resonant and would allow you to earn more than now. If she, of course, took place. It is precisely the prospect of victory that is evaluated by us differently.

So your claim, in my opinion, is not correct.

I have a huge request for you, could you behave more courteously and more correctly with the forum users, especially with people who have more than 5 years of work experience! From the side it does not look very beautiful.

I assure you: if the forum users are discussing the topic of the topic, and not, for example, of me, then questions about "courtesy" simply cannot arise.
I repeat: I would rather hear opinions on how this or that tool can be applied in the practice of a detective rather than discuss who spent how many years.
To be honest, I’m much more interested in the business than the age of those present. We're not on a dating site, after all. Therefore, if yesterday’s schoolboy speaks about the case, I believe that he is worthy of respect. And if flood or rude aksakal - I do not think so.

The allegations of "veiled insult" stand apart. I can answer this, perhaps, with a famous picture:

And anyway, what did you fix the old song about tone again? Isn’t it time to end this and start talking on business without being distracted by emotions?