You and a couple others have made postings that would indicate the article championed blind obedience to the corporate orders.

I didn't get that impression from the article. The writer seemed to recommend an individual decision at each step, with an action and then a follow up based on the result of the action. He offered some guidance for a calm and logical challange to poor corporate direction.

Did we read different articles? Or did his soldier analogy trigger an emotional response and an assumption that he was pushing blind obedience?