DIVER and Edward,
..And now for the rest of the story (in best Paul Harvey voice).
Let's be ingenuous for a moment here.
"Why am I here taking this abuse? I saw a posting on this thread awhile back that stated some young guy had talked his father into putting his retirement account into this stock."
Come on DIVER. James is a big boy and his posts alone indicated he was up to the challenge of due diligence. Besides, I saw a lot of posting going on before Jim brought up the retirement issue!
"Not one question has been answered. This gang are masters at deversion. Its the best "3 card Montie" play I've ever seen. If this is a house a cards it will implode within the next 6 months."
DIVER, many of your questions have been answered, in both kind and not so kind words....Diversion? Charles King mentioned his opinion of the expected '96 10K and when I saw it available I posted the URL for all to see. If folks aren't up to the task of sifting through the SEC-speak, by all means ask for opinion/comments, or sling the mud as you did in your earnings forecast post. Do you not acknowledge posters of rational, thoughtful and kind responses to the questions you pose? I see you still have an estimate of $0.00 for the quarter. Were your concerns of BC's bookkeeping practices not answered? ...House of cards? There's a perfect example of electioneering. Holler loud enough for someone to here that your "opponent" cheated on his wife, everyone sees the headline, but no one sees the retraction or refutation of the baseless comment. What sticks in everyone's mind? Of course, the original factually baseless comment. OF COURSE a house of cards is going to collapse. The point is nothing you have provided here has convinced me we are "dealing" with a house of cards.
Here is my post to you RE the judgments and their effect on earnings.
techstocks.com
Is your earnings forecast for 1Q still $0.00 and if so what information other than those concerns stated in your original post do you base it on?
Edward,
"I feel we need some people who are willing to point out any bad news, even if it is old news. I also found intereting the reaction that some of the GRNO cheerleaders had to any negative post. I believe that is not only very helpful to understanding where these people are coming from but also can cast more light on the value of their posts."
If posting that crappy looking 10K for all to peruse doesn't constitute posting both bad AND old news, I am at a loss for words (guess not considering the length of my post! <g>)
True, some folks out here don't manage stress as well as others but surely no one can accurately gauge the motives/emotions behind each response. Too many personalities to deal with and potentially conflicting ones at that. I don't know or understand the exact relationship or previous dialogue DIVER had with Ron so I cannot pass judgment on either vis-a-vis their biting correspondence. But I CAN dissect the current exchanges of information and see where people are simply not stating the facts in a responsible, accurate fashion. (BTW, not a reference to you, Ed)
Sure we all want to see all sides to every story but I would implore everyone to apply the same filters to each. And enough of these sweeping statements about cheerleaders and naysayers. Jeez, you would think we all are joined at the hip or something and I kind of resent that! (But not TOO much thanks to my self esteem boosting, master of the psychological universe, loving and kind wife!) <g>
Sorry for the pastes/quotations from others' posts but I felt it necessary for clarity.
Anyone pegged my psych profile yet???? Nah!
L2 and Long and LP Mark
(HI Monte! (my bro in Chicago who MAY have my psych pegged!)
Just saw Charles post, so "what he said" too! |
