Finally, your comment about having "so many shares" should make it clear to any lurkers here exactly how "open minded" your opinions really are.
You and I view the function of this forum differently. I use it to search for information which I may then independently verify. The better informed, the more likely my decisions are fruitful, or so the thinking goes....Your comment suggests that you see this forum as a place to manipulate thought. This, of course, explains why you believe that longs are "shills" and "touts".
I don't believe there are enough GUMM SI lurkers to impact the price movement of this stock, let alone enough that would buy on Dan or my recommendation that could have an impact. I have owned the preponderance of these shares for over two years. It is simply preposterous to think that my motive has been to fool someone else to take my shares. (Of course, unless someone can show me why I shouldn't own part of this company, I will continue to own it for years to come). Nothing that you, mad or Wexler have said would come close to convincing me, Dan or Howard etc. to sell. But, if legitimate problems surface which, in fact, undermine promulgation of the business plan, then I would quickly review my position. That is my definition of open minded.
Yeah, you conducted the infamous "Hank Study"...anybody who thought that was unbiased should stand in line to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Your opinion was well documented at that point and your comments throughout the "trial" belied any hint of impartiality. To suggest otherwise simply flies in the face of reality. Your dog and pony show in front of the dog pound was theatrical but not one whit believable.
|
