If you're not attacking me, why do you persist in questioning my motives and intentions and challenging what you believe to be my qualifications to express an opinion on this subject? I'm not doing that with you or anyone else and I don't believe it's proper. Why not stick to the subject? Do you always have such a problem with people whose opinions differ from yours?
I agree with you on some things, and on others you're hilariously off base. First of all, I'm not a "self-styled" expert; as I stated on the KOOP thread, you took it upon yourself to bestow that title on me, but I respectfully decline it. If I could answer the questions that I've been raising myself on these threads, then "maybe" I'd be an expert, and maybe I'd understand how the hell HLTH and KOOP got to 126 and 46, respectively, in the first place. You should also have noticed that I'm only one of 6 or 8 people on these threads who have been saying pretty much the same thing lately regarding revenue streams, and there are several industry analysts who have recently come to the same conclusions (and there will likely be several more in the next month). I think the "consensus" today is significantly different from that of just a few months ago and, as you observe, even reasonable and well-informed people can still have very different opinions.
You stumped me on this one: "Don't keep telling me you know best because you work in sales or advertising." HUH? I'm a health lawyer. Thought I made that clear.
And you're also beginning to put words in my mouth, which I never appreciate. I never said that KOOP, HLTH, MCNS and ONHN "have no fundamentals." For a college professor, you seem to have remarkable difficulty with reading comprehension. I think my statements have been sufficiently clear for well-intentioned and intelligent people to grasp, and my questions about the viability of the "advertising model" remain to be answered. |
