Wow.... So far from coherent.
I'll reply to the parts that maintain some semblance to the original discussion.
<<You are simply arguing semantics here>>
No I am not. There is a difference between what I believe to be technically acceptable posting on SI and what I believe is rational. I think your posts are perfectly "acceptable". However, I find them irrational. I am asking you to defend them and you point me to the "acceptable" posting rules of SI. If you can't recognize that I may hold a different opinion of what is acceptable and what is rational, well, perhaps to you it is semantics.
<<1. You have set yourself up as judge and jury >>
Uh... not a flaw. I am not trying to claim that my opinion on what is rational should be unilateral law. It's my opinion. If you don't care to provide me with any compelling argument, then don't. The problem is that you have tried, so you obviously must care. I am giving you the opportunity to change my opinion. And yes, I am judge and jury of my own opinions. I would think that is trivial knowledge, hardly a *flaw* (nice try tho..).
<<Are you saying that you actually believe the musings of an unknown and anonymous poster who claims to hold a financial interest? >>
I said it's the most compelling reason for someone to post on SI. You've denied that you have a financial interest. My assessment of others behavior is entirely irrelevant. I never said I could ascertain for sure whether or not someone had a financial interest.
<<My suggestion: apply your Expectation Theory with equal force to those who claim to be investors and continuously hype stocks on SI>>
Actually, I give longs who hype the stock equal or less credence than you. So your suggestion is noted. Why you would assume otherwise is unclear. I do not engage them because I assume that financial interest is their reason for hyping. In fact, it's quite rational to hype a stock that one has a long position in. So while I might find their behavior somewhat objectionable, I find it rational and it doesn't interest me.
<<I would also emphatically state that you were a rational poster who should be trusted, believed and revered.>>
Nah, if you were JW Steve, you wouldn't give a crap. Anomalies interest me. That's why I am entertaining you, and your reluctance to attempt to justify your behavior makes me even more curious.
<<I win with style, not in style as >>
There it is.. hmm.. journalist? or just a shiny new style book?
jw steve |
