<'Pat-bashing' would find the thread much less interesting and informative w/out her.Go easy guys. Everbody is entitled to their opinion--even Salim.>
Addressing this to me j, I will respond.
To the extent you (or others) construe my critical posts as "Pat-bashing", you have missed my point.
My criticism is of hyping. To the extent that anyone is challenged, it is on the basis of hype. J, as a scientist, do you not understand this difference and point? Or perhaps you weren't refering to me?
If Pat posted little one-liners as Salim does, without any claim or pretense to authority, there wouldn't be the concern.
Don't get me wrong.. I appreciate any and all who bring whatever they find to this forum. Everyone benefits as more facts, and reasonable interpolations from them, are available. But I reserve my right to question and challenge anything argued as fact, or hyped as probable or likely. Just because some have the time and motivation to spend 14 hours a day on SI/Amati, posting their "facts" and perspective, doesn't give them carte blanche to claim (or hint) whatever they feel unchallenged, especially when in the face of contrary evidence.
And because Pat is a very high profile poster here with very close "connections" to Amati, her claims and hints and insinuations carry more weight than comments from others. As a result, there is then, IMO, a GREATER responsibility on her part to report carefully and conservatively.
Salim got hurt in the stock, through his own doing, but as a result of getting caught up in the hype from this thread. There are others who have as well. This is in fact why the SEC is actively reviewing boards such as SI, for exactly this sort of thing.
So to the extent that Pat and others feel to maintain their (sometimes unreasonable) exuberance and one-sided advocacy of Amati, there will be those whose more parsimonious approach will incite a counter-post.
Were that it not so.
Regards,
Steve |
