I posted #10546 to Morag. He replied #10548. Everything was civilized so far. You entered into that discussion (which you are entitled to do, of course,) when you replied #10552 to him, to include the following;
<quoting Morag: "On the other matter, REK's holdings I know there has been a lot of
debate about the transfer of her shares. If her shares were actually
sold on the market it would have been even more disruptive than AW."
My, oh my, it's nice to hear someone say that! You are the first poster (that I
can recall) who has ever confirmed the fact that sale of RK's shares would
have meant the sale of more than 50,000 shares a day, for more than a
month of trading days.
The shares were transferred - that's obvious. There is absolutely no evidence
to suggest that they have been sold.
There are a lot of unknowns in DMX. Many posted thoughts, and opinions are
treated as "facts" - when they are not facts.
Anger and frustration are no substitutes for thinking clearly. Many conclusions
about Acqua are suppositions: not facts. I have yet to see the proof that
Acqua was the wrong decision. Personally, I don't like it any better than
others, when the price gets scuppered: but the reality is, the price is holding
up well, in a BAD market.
Good, level-headed post, Morag. Well thought-out. Thank you. Jim. end quote>
Jim, I don't wish to get into a slagging match with you - let's leave that to the SH forum.
So, just learn to accept that sometimes it is the questioning posters who precipitate the good posts - and don't dump on them. Fox. |
