Well I guess it is true Frank. I answered your challenge to get reinstated in spades and you aren't man enough to admit that I met your challenge and reinstate me. What an utterly cowardly, pitiful response from you!!! I was hoping for better of you, but deep down I knew it was beyond your capability.
re: assign blame for my personal investment losses.
This is a complete fabrication Frank. I challenge you to show me one time where I blamed Buckley for my investment losses. That would be a pretty embarrassing thing to do, wouldn't it, and the mere suggestion that I would do that is very insulting to me.
Re: Point of my post.
At one time I promoted SST and Mike promoted SEBL, and we both got it wrong (imo), but that clearly wasn't the point of my post. Instead the point was my personal belief that Buckley is still using a questionable definition of free cash flow from operations that can mistakenly assign a positive free cash flow from operations number to companies like SEBL that have had mostly zero or negative Core Earnings from operations. Perhaps some folks might have been interested in examining my contention and further enlightening me regarding an alternative viewpoint. I would have welcomed discussing it. It is extremely disappointing that both of your responses to this non-contentious contention was to run and hide from discussing this issue in an intelligent manner, and throw up two smoke screens-- the ignore button and ban button to avoid engaging in intelligent debate on the issue.
re: "Promotion"
I clearly answered your little challenge for reinstatement to show where Buckley "promoted SEBL as a successful Gorilla", (even though it seemed like a rather ridiculous request and was not the central point of my post as stated above) and now you are not man enough to acknowledge that I met your challenge, now you want to change the criteria for reinstatement and throw up some new ill defined bars to entry. How pitiful of you Frank!!!! Both you and Mike seem to have an inability to discuss issues when they aren't going your way and your responses are to run and hide. The fact that I used the word "promotion" in my post has to be the lamest excuse to ban someone I have ever seen on SI. What is SI about if it isn't about learning about and promoting investments?
re: History
And are you also banning me partly for some post I made to MB on a different thread quite a while ago? If we are going to run all over SI grabbing historical posts off other threads rather than narrow the search to what is said on your moderated thread, perhaps you ought to look a look in the mirror at the much more insulting posts you have made to folks on other threads over time---such as the post you made on the Q thread implying that John Shannon was making up numbers, and then failing to substantiate your contention in any manner whatsoever. And in this case you are not even bothering to determine whether there is some merit to my disagreement with MB on the free cash flow issue that I stated. Who has clearly been the contentious one in this exchange? Maybe if anyone should be banned, it should be MB (although I don't think there was any reason to ban anyone here at all). How about looking at the issues and facts Frank, or is that simply not part of your game?
Thanks but no thanks for your incredibly cowardly response and weakly disguised attempt at fair moderation. Imo, any educated person could have done a more credible job of moderating this situation in their sleep to a friendly conclusion without resulting in an off the cuff ban like you just engaged in. I can't do anything else but assume there was absolutely no attempt at being fair and the fix is in.
Prosperous investing,
Huey |
