I recently posted the following on the GRNO thread:
I rarely post replies or comments to SI because the threads seem to be comprised mostly of speculation and rumor. Parts of this thread are different in that we seem to have a few folks here trying to present either the facts as they are known or informed opinion where those facts are not or can not be known. Ron Reece, in my view, is one of these. Lately, however, we seem to have degenerated into a series of posts that are filled with name-calling. I, for one, would be quite happy to listen to, and occasionally contribute to, a discussion of the merits or failures of the company under review. Speculation based on some sort of concrete evidence would be a crucial part of the analysis (sometimes it's all you have to go on). This type of speculation is exactly what folks like DIVER are not providing. After a review of all of the last three months or so of posts, I cannot find
one of his negative comments that appears to be based on verifiable evidence. If he were asking difficult questions based on knowledge, that would be another matter. My question to this forum is: why do you
continue to answer his messages? Ignore him and those who provide no constructive comments, and he (they) may go away. If not, it's his (their) time.
Every thread seems to have at least one person who is bent on tearing down without offering anything constructive. Craig Crawford is one of these sorts. Personally, I have better things to do than to slag off companies and people in which I no longer have a financial interest. My question to you (and some others) is: why oh why do you continue to encourage him???
Mike |
