Hello wizzkid,
First off, I forgot to acknowledge you and thank you for joining SI just to post to me. I'm honored.
You are welcome to your opinions, and the justifications for them. I'm now completely lost with respect to what your purpose is. If you simply want to bash me, please feel free. I'd be glad to serve you in that role.
I too follow a wide range of conversations about the cases, and the one thing that I do know at this point is that the cases are not over. You might argue this is merely formality, however in many cases it does not turn out this way.
I do see from your references that you accurately follow many of the biased sources of information, as do I. I also have learned over the years to follow all sides when evaluating a situation. Although the judge has throw out many things, he has not thrown out the case. It might occur ... we'll both get to see.
If you are simply here to express that you feel this is not a good investment, you seem to be doing it in a very wordy, and angry, way. If you are here to feel good about yourself by making me wrong ... and SCO wrong ... then please feel free to state that. I'll do my best to accommodate you.
As for the term "religion" we ought to come to agreement on the definition. I tend to use this word to represent "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience".
Within the context of this definition, you seem to have very strong "religion" about the SCO case, and it's investment possibilities.
In addition, if you claim to be a "card-carrying atheist" then that is the religion that you choose! Your religion is simply the anti-religion. To each his own! :-)
P.S. I prefer agnostic or skeptic disciplines myself ... which are, of course, religions of their own. :-)
Scott C. Lemon
the.inevitable.org |
