If some of them are, then maybe all of them are. But whoever was in that role prior was not, or else Daunt would not have been an improvement.

So... not all CEOs are worth paying outrageous amounts for, and the world track record on making that decision is not very encouraging.

Again, nobody said "all".

You did technically use the word in your statement ("...all that money,") but you also implied that the example of James Daunt said more than "James Daunt is a good hire if you run a bookstore company," which might or might not be true.

> You did technically use the word in your statement ("...all that money,")

You know better. "money" is not "them", if you need more elucidation.

Okay, that's twice you've taken the easy response and ignored the actual meat of critique. I think that's indicator enough that you're unserious.

Your addition of "all" was the meat of your critique. It's a rhetorical device, meant to be argumentative, not substantive.

"which might or might not be true" is yet another variation of the same rhetorical argumentative trick.