(Visited 475 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 How can Big Science and the secular materialists who bow before their science altar be so in love with death? It makes no sense.Abortion remains one of the most partisan issues of our time. What makes some humans so eager to kill other humans, especially the vulnerable who cannot fight back? Recent news articles provide some insights into the thinking of pro-abortionists and how they abuse science to support their views.Cecile Richards: Force Christian docs to perform abortions (WND). The retiring head of Planned Parenthood, who was exposed on undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress for offering baby body parts for sale, is not content to keep the grisly practice confined to her own business. She declared jihad on members of the pro-life community:Richards, in a fundraising email to a pro abortion members [sic] of Planned Parenthood, essentially says that Christians should be forced to perform abortions. She aggressively criticizes the new conscience protections President Donald Trump has put in place to protect the civil rights of Americans who are medical workers who do not want to be forced to perform or assist in abortions.But Richards says protecting pro-life doctors and nurses from being forced to perform abortions is “shameful.” From her fundraising plea entitled “Discrimination, plain and simple. Fight back now:”Teens whose mothers had an abortion are more likely to undergo abortion (Science Daily). This article seems to be just a statistical study, supporting what the headline states. But careful reading shows a clear bias toward the end. The reader hears about “unprotected sex” and “unwanted pregnancies,” and finds a value-laden conclusion: “Whatever the pregnancy outcome, the need to advocate for the health of a young woman is paramount.” It’s as if the baby doesn’t matter at all, nor the father, nor society. The writer pretty much admits this in the last sentence: “Study limitations include a lack of information on the fathers, the marital status and education levels of both mother and daughter, or family dynamics and attitudes.” Would not those factors be crucial to the study? And what about the law? Can the value of life be reduced to a matter of inches in the birth canal? Once the baby is born, most people would be horrified at the thought of infanticide (at least in 2018). Desperate measures are given to babies who make that last inch.Senators Vote Against Late-Term Abortion Ban Despite the Will of Most Americans (Breitbart News). This piece from a conservative news source keeps to the facts, sharing who was for and who was against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that failed to pass the Senate last week, to the disappointment of President Trump and most pro-life Republicans in Congress. What’s instructive for our analysis is the reasoning of Planned Parenthood about this bill against the backdrop [of] scientific evidence that late-term babies feel pain, which means that late-term abortions are acts of torture as well as death. The failure to pass this common-sense bill leaves the US among 7 nations that still allow late-term abortions, including China and North Korea. But the nation’s leading abortion provider does not even try to invoke scientific evidence for their position. To pro-lifers, the situation looks hideous:Planned Parenthood tweeted #StopTheBans to condemn the prohibition on abortion past the fifth month of pregnancy. The abortion vendor also condemned the U.S. House’s passage of a bill that would require abortionists to immediately provide emergency medical care to an infant born alive during an abortion.Effectiveness and safety of early medication abortion provided in pharmacies by auxiliary nurse-midwives (PLoS One). The attitude of clinical detachment from the issues in this paper should strike pro-lifers as disturbing. The nine ‘researchers’ seem intent on pushing medical-induced abortion on women in Nepal by the most effective means possible. Abortion is hidden under euphemisms about “reproductive health technologies” which is not (as one might presume) just about contraception or infertility treatments. No; the authors are concerned about “unsafe abortion care” in their package of “reproductive health technologies.” They don’t want to stop abortion as much as encourage “abortion effectiveness and safety,” particularly by improving women’s access to trained midwives. Wait; aren’t midwives supposed to help women give birth? Try to imagine this kind of dispassionate statement in a Nazi journal about safe and effective gas chambers for Jew killers.Despite improvements in access to safe abortion care in Nepal, women continue to face obstacles to safe abortion and to seek care from unskilled providers, with access to safe care particularly constrained in rural regions. This study provides data supporting the expansion of medication abortion services to registered pharmacy settings when care is provided by an appropriately trained ANM [auxiliary nurse midwife]. Future research should build on these findings by investigating ways to safely implement pharmacy ANM provision at scale and monitor quality of care provided.Et tu, Clergy? Clergy ‘Bless’ Late-Term Abortion Clinic (Breitbart News). Readers may find this statement hard to believe, but some members of the ‘clergy’ offered a ‘blessing’ on a new clinic that specializes in late-term abortions—you know, the kind that tortures unborn infants before killing them.A group of clergy joined together to “bless” and declare “holy” a new abortion clinic that performs third trimester abortions and is run by notorious abortionist LeRoy Carhart.“God of grace and God of glory, in whom we move and live,” said Baptist minister Carlton Veazey, beginning a prayer for abortionists and other staff and their patients, reports the Washington Post.“Keep them safe and keep them strong,” he continued. “And may they always know that all that they do is for Thy glory.”Following these quotes, the article turns up the shock with additional quotes from Jewish, Presbyterian and other ‘Christian’ denominations trying to justify their blessing. In her 2006 book Godless, outspoken news analyst Ann Coulter made the audacious claim that to liberals, abortion is a ‘sacrament.’ It doesn’t sound that audacious any more.Bill Maher quote, by J. B. Greene (used by permission).What drives this visceral attitude by secular liberals to ‘protect a woman’s right to choose’? What makes them so casual about killing other human beings? Part of it is belief that the world is overpopulated, and that more human births are ‘unsustainable’ for the planet. But an undeniable common thread is evolution.Jerry Bergman has documented this in his book How Darwinism Corrodes Morality, chs. 4-5, with a damning account of Margaret Sanger’s Darwinian, racist and eugenics beliefs (she was the founder of Planned Parenthood). John West concurs in his book Darwin Day in America, chs. 14-15. Evolution devalues human life. We are just animals.No; humans are worse. Humans are weeds. Look at this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: “Early hominids may have been weed species.” If that is what the authors, Richard S. Meindl, Morgan E. Chaney and C. Owen Lovejoy, think of hominids, what do they think of us today? Logically, weeds give birth to weeds. Why not pull out the weeds on the planet?Throughout the years, CEH has pointed to paper after scientific paper that commits reductionism, reducing human beings to chemicals. Here are more that appeared recently:A neurochemical hypothesis for the origin of hominids (PNAS). If our ancestors originated from chemicals, even neurochemicals, what rights do they have? What dignity? Here’s a sample from this paper revealing that the materialist secular authors do NOT have the science on their side: just imagination and a worldview where no intelligence is allowed:It has always been difficult to account for the evolution of certain human characters such as language, empathy, and altruism via individual reproductive success. However, the striatum, a subcortical region originally thought to be exclusively motor, is now known to contribute to social behaviors and “personality styles” that may link such complexities with natural selection.In other words, the matter in this brain region gives rise to the good, the true, and the beautiful. This kind of self-refuting theorizing is very common in the secular scientific literature. It’s self-refuting, because it means that their own paper has no anchor in something eternal; it evolves. It is also self-refuting because it reduces thought to matter in motion. What does matter in motion know about anything?Another less obvious self-refutation in the pro-abortion scientific leftist community is the myth that reducing population is good for the planet. Where did that idea of ‘good’ come from? Darwinism knows nothing of good. Even survival is not morally good. If humans kill off everything else, then go extinct themselves, who is to say that is bad? The party was fun while it lasted.Dr Eric Pianka, ardent evolutionist and genocide advocate, by J B Greene (used by permission).The notion of good and evil, which is so innate in mankind, is irreducible to matter (see Michael Egnor’s commentary in Evolution News). Its presence in all cultures and times is testimony to the fact that each human being, even a leftist liberal, has a soul and a conscience—just like the Bible says. We had better pay attention to the fact that the author of that book was pro-life.To end on an encouraging note, the Trump administration and conservative Congress is on a roll to increase religious freedom. Trump would have signed the Pain-Capable bill had a few Senators voted the right way. It may come up again, and we should encourage them to protect the unborn. Also, Crisis Pregnancy Centers are poised to do better this year than they fared under the previous administration. One located in your Editor’s hometown is moving into a new facility after a successful fund-raising campaign. At least 51% of Americans say they are now pro-life, and even more favor some restrictions on abortion. This is a winnable war (for life), despite the 60 million abortions that have occurred since Roe v. Wade. Support the Crisis Pregnancy Centers near you. Unlike Planned Parenthood, which still gets over half a billion dollars a year from the US Government even after the undercover videos revealed their crimes, Crisis Pregnancy Centers get no money from the government and rely entirely on donations. They, and the women they serve, and the lives they save, deserve your support.
It’s impossible to believe our ancestors were as dumb as evolutionists make them out to be. But Darwinians must believe it.Knowing what we know about human beings, ask if the Darwinian story is credible. In just 6,000 years of recorded history, humans went from grass shacks to the moon, computers, and supersonic flight. Darwinians, by contrast, say that nobody ever thought of a farm, a permanent dwelling, or a domesticated animal for at least 50 times as long! They believe that modern humans, as anatomically and mentally as capable as any of us, subsisted in caves as hunter-gatherers for over 300,000 years. And if you add in the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo erectus (all upright-walking tool makers with controlled use of fire, capable of long-distance migration), they stretch human history back over a million years, approaching 200 times the length of human civilization! How can anybody believe that? Our ancestors would have to be complete idiots to go that long without ever inventing anything better than stone tools. Was there no Einstein or Edison among them?Keep this in mind as we look at the latest things that Darwinians say about human history. They have to believe all human ancestors were too stupid to farm or ride a horse, because their evolutionary timeline requires it. (Remember, Comte de Buffon in 1778 postulated an outrageously long timeline of 75,000 years for the entire history of life, which his contemporaries thought was ridiculous.) And yet today’s evolutionists (and historians) all know that civilization and agriculture literally exploded on the scene only a few thousand years ago (like the book of Genesis teaches, by the way). Let’s watch evolutionists scramble to maintain their timeline against all logic, common sense and evidence.Wandering Stories (Current Biology). In this essay, Florian Maderspacher tells a wandering story, all right. He wanders through evolutionary timelines of early man, telling how Neanderthal DNA and Denisovan DNA has changed our understanding of our ancestors. As usual, when devising a tale, it helps to say that ‘it’s complicated.’From the earliest analyses of mitochondrial DNA to more extensive whole-genome analyses, there is genetic evidence that all humans living outside Africa today can trace their ancestry back to a single source population that left Africa between 50 and 60 thousand years ago. This picture, simplified through the fog of history, makes for a great heroic story, as it seems to suggest that this African founder population had something special — a cognitive or cultural spark that set it apart from its ancestors and let it sweep across Earth within a few dozen millennia; but this is not the whole picture.Recall that even 50,000 years still represents over 8 times all recorded human history. That’s a long time for anatomically modern, smart, migrating Homo sapiens (you remember, the old “Cro-Magnon Man” and such), who had already been living in Morocco 350,000 years ago in their myth (11 July 2018, 8 June 2017), decided to move to Europe and invent cave art, like the elegant drawings at Chauvet and Lascaux. But of course, in Madershacher’s “great heroic story,” these geniuses had tens of thousands of years to go before figuring out farming. Watch him explain away common sense with a “scenario” of pure speculation:But why did humans leave Africa at the time they did? From the recent fossil finds of Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, we know that Homo sapiens — though anatomically not quite the current mark — was present in Northern Africa at least 300 thousand years ago. If the first major wave of migration really took place around 100 thousand years ago, then why the long hiatus? As with contemporary migrations, there are push or pull factors — and various mixtures thereof. Overpopulation, resource depletion or habitat degeneration might push people out of their homelands, while opportunity — the grass being greener and the antelopes more plentiful on the other side — might pull people towards new habitats. For modern humans, perhaps a fairly simple, permissive scenario is the most plausible. Like any other species, early humans were dependent on how much food they could extract from the lands they were roaming. The fatter the land, the more people it could carry, and the more likely people were to disperse.Since he just brought up the criterion of “plausible,” ask if his account fits your standard of plausibility. Today’s humans live in all kinds of habitats, from frozen tundra to hot deserts and humid jungles. Are they feeling a “push” or “pull” to migrate and evolve? Believe it or not, Maderspacher next brings up “climate change” as a driving force behind the migration that he thinks led eventually to civilization! Yes, readers, climate change made humans what they are, even though today’s Homo sapiens live all over the earth! There’s political correctness distorting academia again.The only way Maderspacher can defend this tale is to portray every human ancestor as completely stupid until some “cognitive or cultural spark” brought civilization. My, what was that? A lucky mutation! Oh, but if the one who got the mutation never had kids, there goes all hope for mankind down the drain. The story flies in the face of all human experience, but as a Darwinian, he has to believe it. He has to defend it. Stupid or not, he has to teach it. He knows he is safe, too, because nobody protected by the Darwin Party Police will allow outside critics to be heard laughing.Cold climates contributed to the extinction of the Neanderthals (Northumbria University). Click the link, and watch how the Darwin worshipers at Northumbria have reproduced another version of the long-discredited “march of man” icon of evolution (10 April 2018). Ever notice how these sexists always show only naked men, but never women? Ever notice how these racists always show a progression from dark skin to light skin? (Check out Discovery Institute’s new award winning documentary, Human Zoos, recounting how evolutionists used to exhibit black people alongside apes in zoos and museums. Jerry Bergman has also written extensively about that ‘inconvenient’ racist history of Darwinism—see book image below.)Racist and sexist illustration on Northumbria U website perpetuates known myths about human progress.We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. —Henry Gee, Nature, 5 Oct 2011Back to this just-so story: the idea that climate change wiped out the Neanderthals is untenable and absurd on its face (they were fully human, by the way: see 27 June 2018). Evolutionists believe Neanderthals thrived for 400,000 years— an awful long time to learn how to survive anything the climate could throw at them. If it was so cold for these expert hunters who had spread all across the middle east and Europe, why didn’t they just move south? Sensible people can see how dumb this story is, but it got published in the ‘prestigious’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences anyway; why? Because it glorifies Darwin. Nobody in BS (Big Science) or BM (Big Media) has the desire (or courage) to laugh at or protest anything with the King Charles imprimatur on it, even if it is sexist and racist. Such is the power of the Darwin Party.What REALLY happened.DNA lives to tell the tale (Current Biology). DNA lives, for sure, and it says something, undoubtedly, but the tale told in this book review must not deviate from the Darwinian myth. Veteran anthropologist Bernard Wood is reviewing David Reich’s latest book with the pompous title, Who We Are and How We Got Here. He could have saved a lot of paper by just pointing his readers to Genesis, but that wouldn’t do: the Darwin myth must triumph!Reich talks about “ancient DNA” that just became available in 1997 from Neanderthals, and how more and more DNA from ‘antique humans’ has been rewriting the evolutionists’ myths about early man. Finding Neanderthal DNA in living humans should have shown that all the fake sub-groups that the paleo-racists split people into have been falsified, but Darwinism is impervious to nuclear bombs, like nuclear or mitochondrial DNA. Here’s a taste of Wood’s oily story (again, ‘it’s complicated’).Reich suggests that the reality is much more complex than the conventional wisdom that I have outlined. The picture he paints is one where regional continuity is the exception, and not the rule. For example, ancient DNA sequences from individuals only tens of thousands of years old suggest that modern humans in Europe are the result of a series of episodes through time during which contemporary populations underwent a process that recalls the churning needed to make butter.You may now groan, “Oh, good grief.” He calls it conventional “wisdom”? Remember, he is talking about modern humans, smart and artistic and inventive people like us. To evolutionists, modern humans still had tens of thousands of years to go (multiple times all recorded history) before thinking how easy life could be with wheels, domesticated animals, farms and permanent dwellings. Evolutionists cannot have civilized man appearing too fast, because they need to stretch human evolution out to cover the 6 million years since they were apes in the trees. Without the slow-and-gradual long ages of natural selection, you see, it might look like creation. This must not be allowed to happen. The reputation of Charlie is at stake!Individual variation in human navigation (Current Biology). This article is not about early man, but it makes a point relevant to the above discussion: namely, that people differ in their abilities. Some people (undoubtedly you know among your acquaintances) are more gifted at finding their way around than others.The aim of this primer is to review evidence that people differ substantially in how they navigate, to examine paradigms that allow us to assess this variation, and to argue that the cognitive map debate needs to take individual differences into account. In brief, some people may form a cognitive map, and others may not.If we grant author Nora S. Newcombe this premise, then why is it not reasonable to expect that Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo erectus types, as well as Cro-Magnons, also exhibited individual variations in their abilities? We know from experience that people vary considerably in their mental, spatial, mathematical, social, and aesthetic talents. Darwinians tend to lump all Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons (or whatever) into categories of individuals who show no variation whatsoever; they were all equally dumb. It defies all reason to expect that. Undoubtedly there were geniuses in each of these populations that could have made major breakthroughs in the alleged ten-thousands of years of their presumed existence, and would have dramatically transformed their cultures within a decade or two. People do, after all, plagiarize each other’s ideas. Why didn’t that occur, if the populations were around as long as Darwinians say they were?On YouTube, a guy wearing shorts on the Primitive Technology Channel has gained millions of followers who are fascinated at how he can go into the Australian jungle and chop down trees, build rainproof huts, plant vegetables and live comfortably with tools he makes with his own hands, using whatever materials he finds around him. Was there no such creative person 50,000 years ago? How about 350,000 years ago? How about a million years ago? Did those mythical years even exist?Look how quickly computer science and telecommunications arose in our day. Surely someone could have invented a mud brick, or found a way to smelt metal ore, or made a simple bridle out of vines to put on that horse over there. Evolutionists can believe that these people traveled from Africa to China, surviving off the land in all the diverse habitats and climates along the route, but never dreamed of any of these simple conveniences for tens of thousands of years — nay, for hundreds of thousands of years! – until “we” arrived with the latest mutational upgrade.A single gene mutation may have helped humans become optimal long-distance runners (Phys.org). Let’s end with a “science” news article with a headline so absurd it would be laughed off the stage if it didn’t glorify Charlie. According to King Charles, all human traits arose by chance mutations (Stuff Happens Law) and natural selection (ditto). Because of the absolute requirement that all science reporting must protect the reputation of Darwin, his disciples at the University of California, San Diego postulate that the amazing human trait of endurance running happened by mistake. Read in disbelief what got published by these Darwin worshipers in a peer-reviewed journal by the Royal Society:Two to three million years ago, the functional loss of a single gene triggered a series of significant changes in what would eventually become the modern human species, altering everything from fertility rates to increasing cancer risk from eating red meat.In a new paper, published in the September 12 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine report on studies of mice engineered to lack the same gene, called CMAH, and resulting data that suggest the lost gene may also have contributed to humanity’s well-documented claim to be among the best long-distance runners in the animal kingdom.At Evolution News & Science Today, David Klinghoffer could not accept this story, but perhaps was gentler in his critique than the tale deserves.Folks, has it struck you what a disastrous hoax this Darwinian tale is? This is the story that rules biology today. It makes no sense, and it flies in the face of evidence, but every student is required to hear it. It is the only story schools are allowed to teach. It is the only story the journals are allowed to print. Try to criticize it—no matter how gently or discreetly—and the Darwin Party’s totalitarian bigots will destroy you. (I speak from experience.) Look at this headline at New Scientist: “It’s an outrage that Turkey is ditching Darwin from science textbooks.” The subhead reads, “Evolution is being dropped from school biology texts in Turkey. In Hungary, academic freedoms are increasingly threatened. Time to worry, says Rachael Jolley.” It’s an outrage! DODOs: this is your call to arms! Go on the warpath! Destroy the heretics! All children must have their DOPE! Without it, they might think for themselves!Oh, the irony. “Academic freedoms are increasingly threatened.” The most intolerant academic bigots in the world are the Darwinians.Whether or not Turkey and Hungary have a wise policy is not the point. The Discovery Institute advises a much more accommodating policy. They want Darwinian evolution to be taught in public schools! They just want it to be taught honestly. They have consistently opposed school boards who try to require the teaching of intelligent design. It would be sufficient for them to allow teachers to show both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism. But no! That is forbidden! Only 100% pure, unadulterated Darwin Worship is allowed! The DODOs are in power, and they know that only DOPE produces the needed high, so that students can be molded and brainwashed to become compliant subjects of the kingdom of Darwin.The societal consequences of Darwinism are devastating.Darwinism is the creation myth of our time, and its propagandists will not tolerate any criticism of it. It would be tragic enough if there were no consequences, but the consequences are devastating. Some 55% to 75% of children raised in Christian homes leave the church by the time they become young adults (source), largely because they have been fed the lie that Darwinian evolution explains life and humanity. (The flip side is that few churches equip students with the weapons to fight these lies, so that students never learn the powerful evidence for Biblical creation.) These apostates go on to live without purpose, and swallow many of the other cultural lies that flow from the toxic drainpipe of ideological poison flowing out of the Darwin Industry. In addition to that, adding insult to injury, there are more and more churches drinking the kool-aid and thinking that “theistic Darwinism” provides an acceptable scientific compromise that will keep peace with King Charles and his army. (Note: it doesn’t. The DODOs think theistic evolutionists are fools, and oppose them almost as strongly.)Are you angry yet? This has been going on for decades! What are you doing about it?One thing you can do is to support those who are trying to expose the lies. We do have a Donate button above, if you should choose to empower us to reach more with this important message. Whatever you do, or whomever you support, do something to expose the anti-scientific mythology of our time.(Visited 643 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Another mobile video startup enters the ring with the relaunch of mobile video editing app Videolicious. So, how do ‘simple’ editors effect the future?As the technology behind video editing gets more complex – more effects, more customization, more OPTIONS – there’s also a push to make things more simple. Simplicity is the key behind Videolicious, a mobile app that aims to be a video editor for users with NO prior editing experience.The app is geared towards individuals looking to create quick educational or promotional videos (event, sales or blog videos for example). The app is picking up interest from investors too, with the creators recently receiving $1.4 million in startup funding.Videolicious is currently a freemium model, where users can download the app for free but pay $5 or $10 a month plan to get more advanced features like longer videos and more storage.Although the app clearly doesn’t have the same capabilities of more full-featured professional video editing applications (Avid, Premiere Pro, etc), it’s interesting to consider what effect an app like Videolicious may have on the post-production industry. If users with NO experience, are able and empowered to create their own videos, might this take business away from the professional video editing market? Surely the quality of the product would not be comparable, but a client looking to save some money might think “I can just shoot and edit this project myself!”When FCPX was released for $300, that seemed to be a concern to many video editors. Historically post production apps and hardware were priced so that they were accessible solely to professionals. Further, FCPX was being touted by some editors as a “dumbed down” version of past versions. Lower costs and consumer platforms mean an even bigger marketplace of self proclaimed “pro editors”. Does this threaten/scare those that edit videos for a living?**More info at Techcrunch: “Videolicious Relaunches Its App For Mobile Video Editing, Raises $1.4 Million from Amazon and Others.“Does the over simplification of video editing “dumb down” the craft?Let us know what you think in the comments!
Essential Reading! Get my 2nd book: The Lost Art of Closing “In The Lost Art of Closing, Anthony proves that the final commitment can actually be one of the easiest parts of the sales process—if you’ve set it up properly with other commitments that have to happen long before the close. The key is to lead customers through a series of necessary steps designed to prevent a purchase stall.” Buy Now Let’s say you and your competitors both sell the same thing to your customers. You both buy the same raw materials to develop your product. You both pay $100 for those raw materials. You sell your product for $150, and your competitor sells theirs for $130. Your higher price is enough to cause some buyers to buy from your competitor. All things being equal, they’re right to pay the lower price.But all things are not equal. The product that you sell is superior to your competitor’s. You invest more to develop the final product, it is of far superior quality, it lasts longer, and your customers don’t have to buy it as frequently. More still, your sales team is out teaching your customers how to get even more out of the product and saving them money. Your competitor has a lower price, but you have a lower cost. Why? because you create greater value.But you lose a significant amount of deals to your competitor. Some prospects don’t understand how paying more can cost them less. You are faced with a choice. You can either more effectively sell the value you create, or you can eliminate price as an objection. It’s easier to lower your price than it is to sell better.You match the $130. Now you have less profit to support your sales model, and you can no longer spend time teaching your clients how to save money. You also have less money to develop the product the way you had been, and so you and your competitor are now equal.But every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Your competitor was selling lowest price. That was their business strategy. So they lower their price to $120, taking back the price advantage on which they were competing. Your customers still demand the same level of service and support, and you don’t understand how your competitor can deliver anything of value at that price. But now you’ve given up competing on the greater value you create, so you match the $120, imagining there is no way your competitor can lower their price again. But you are wrong. They lower their price to $110.This is how sales organizations, salespeople, and whole industries are commoditized. If you have chosen low price as your strategy, then you need to compete by eliminating costs and providing the lowest price in all cases. But if you have decided to sell the additional value you create, the value that makes you different, then you need to focus on selling more effectively.Reducing your price to increase your revenue is one way to go about increased sales. But that choice comes with reduced margins. You may indeed end up increasing your sales and selling more while building a far less profitable, and less valuable business. And you might also build a business that doesn’t make a difference in the end.
New Delhi: Former India skipper Sunil Gavaskar has backed Shreyas Iyer for the number four spot in India’s ODI batting order saying the Delhi Capitals skipper should be given a permanent place in the line-up. Making a comeback in the national team after a year, Iyer hit a 68-ball 71 to help India post a competitive 279/7 against West Indies in the second ODI in Port-of-Spain on Sunday. While it is learnt that the Indian team management wants wicketkeeper-batsman Rishabh Pant for the vacant number four spot, Gavaskar felt he should be moved a spot lower. “In my view, Rishabh Pant is much better like M S Dhoni at 5 or 6 as a finisher because that’s where his natural game and natural flair will come into play,” Sunil Gavaskar was quoted as saying by a channel. “If India get to a great start with Virat Kohli, Shikhar Also Read – Puducherry on top after 8-wkt win over ChandigarhDhawan and Rohit Sharma batting for 40-45 overs, then Pant at No. 4. But if it’s a question of batting for 30-35 overs, then I think it should be Shreyas Iyer at No. 4 and Pant at No. 5,” he added. Gavaskar further said: “He has grabbed his opportunity. He came at No. 5. He had plenty of overs. He had the company of his skipper, Virat Kohli. Nothing quite like it because the skipper takes the pressure off you.” Earlier, Iyer didn’t get a game during the T20 series against the Windies. “The best place to learn in cricket is the non-striker’s end. That’s what Shreyas Iyer was doing with Virat Kohli at the other end,” the 70-year-old concluded.