Not necessarily. You would know that failing to plan for something, that requires said planning, will inevitably lead to failure (or at best, poor results). Thus, by making the conscious decision to forgo planning: you are, indeed, planning to fail. Or you're stupid. Either way: not good.
Not necessarily. You would know that failing to plan for something, that requires said planning, will inevitably lead to failure (or at best, poor results). Thus, by making the conscious decision to forgo planning: you are, indeed, planning to fail. Or you're stupid. Either way: not good.
planning to fail.
Then you planned. That invalidates the first part of the statement. "If you fail to plan..."
If you failed because you decided to go stuff your puss with Big Macs instead, then you made a choice not to do anything. That's not planning, that's inaction.
> planning to fail.
Then you planned. That invalidates the first part of the statement. "If you fail to plan..."
If you failed because you decided to go stuff your puss with Big Macs instead, then you made a choice not to do anything. That's not planning, that's inaction.
Now you're just being pedantic.
Now you're just being pedantic.
No, it's a simple either-or. You either do this, or do that. You can't do both according to the statement, because one cancels the other.
No, it's a simple either-or. You either do this, or do that. You can't do both according to the statement, because one cancels the other.
(post is archived)