zlacker

While that's a very nice saying, and I appreciate you applying in this context, what you're basically saying is we can never ever assess any organization as strong whatsoever, since every organization that breaks up seems strong at some point.

>>xNeil+(OP)
That's not what was said at all in context, and I do not appreciate you putting words in my valid comment. You dismissed the original argument with your own personal truths.

>>urda+d1
You didn't really make a comment -- you just dropped in an Asimov quote. And xNeil's interpretation of the relevance of that comment matched my intuition. If you had some other intent with that comment, maybe you should clarify?

>>urda+d1
I guess I can see why you feel that way - you intended to say a company that seems strong may be at risk of failing just like any other company (in this case, just because Google seems large does not mean they are not failing) - which is something I (sort of) agree with!

But doesn't it logically follow that the same truth holds for any other 'strong' company, thereby rendering our perception of it (or any other company) worthless? I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I just made a logical continuation, that's all.