That is, what he was saying is usually interpreted as 'execution is ALL that counts'.
Again, as the article clearly states, "Having a great idea is not enough. It is the manner in which ideas are executed that counts." The idea is clearly mentioned here as part of the formula.
I'm sorry, but you're just making bizarre leaps from what the article said.
You have a serious emotional block here. I addressed exactly this pair of sentences.
Read what I actually wrote.
Or yet again, push down your emotional whatever and just pay a little attention: The second sentence, given how the English language works, is essentially saying that execution is ALL that "counts" so that necessarily the idea doesn't count. So the second sentence contradicts the first. He's writing garbage, and you are reading into it what you want.
Again, as the article clearly states, "Having a great idea is not enough. It is the manner in which ideas are executed that counts." The idea is clearly mentioned here as part of the formula.
I'm sorry, but you're just making bizarre leaps from what the article said.