Ah, Mike, always the charmer...
Kevin, what is the point of a stupid question like that?
Okay, background time. In the latter stages of the ZONA debacle (for those long it), one individual, whose name I have long since forgotten, took Bill to task for his criticism of ZONA's product Vasomax, based on the fact that Bill had not personally tested Vasomax on himself. He went on to say that upon taking Vasomax he experienced an erection shortly thereafter, whereupon (presumably after flaccidity was restored) he went to his broker and bought a significant amount of ZONA stock based solely on this experience. Those of us on this thread got a good chuckle out of that (if you fail to see why, we may go into this further) and wrote him off as an aberrantly deluded individual.
Fast-forward to today's posting from "pz", which, to repeat, read in part (emphasis mine):
"I'm also a substantial stockholder in GUMM for only one reason. Myself and several friends tried Zicam and it worked..."
(Note how the above is a direct and accurate quote, Doc.)
Now, I have taken a leap of faith and presumed that the second sentence is not a logical disconnect, but in fact describes the single reason why "pz" elected to make a substantial investment in GUMM.
Now then, Mike, do you now see the parallel between these two sets of circumstances, and why the latter reminded me of the former, or will further explanation be necessary? |
