Hi, KW Wingman - Those of us who watch the steady parade of wannabe technology companies cross the stage under the hot, bright lights, know too well that some will fail.
Investors like myself read Frank's thoughts with some circumspection at first; later, we come to know the inquiring mind behind the posts.
The technology spoken of, whatever it be, will be tossed, turned, poked, prodded, examined, scrutinized and philosophized over by Frank, and we read, learning from the insights.
I have read every one of the posts you so readily damn. They are an inquiry, a speculation, a discussion, a contemplation; all of these alive to the promise of a new technology, or technique. But an endorsement? Not.
Invariably, these companies and technologies are shrouded in marketspeak and bafflegab. The secret core of proprietary technology, if it exists, or is workable, is jealously hidden.
It is the nature of the market these days that at some time we will discuss, or evaluate something that is a bust.
Your statistical approach to the posts in question belies one simple fact: you can't read. Nowhere is there an endorsement of the company in question.
What is appreciated is the possibility that, should the envisioned technology exist, it would be A Good Thing.
I suggest you learn to understand the true meaning of the words you see. |
