John - I am at least partially heartened by your contribution to returning the tone here to something approaching 'civilized' (OTOH, Michael Murphy's voice screams volumes, once again, by its absence).
However, John, you've read my extended response to this thing and your focus ONLY on my behavior is a gross miscarriage of the facts 'on the ground'. Since you chose to ignore 50% of my response, I will take the same liberty with your response as you did with mine:
=================
(from John Metcalf to Scott Jiminez:)
Scott, congratulations on having the presence of mind to change your portfolio and the wherewithal to bring to light the hypocrisy and double-standards present in the criticisms directed towards you. As you pointed out, there is a continuum between choosing low priced high-risk stocks and acting as a "prudent investor", while trying to win a contest. While the bar that is set on the risky-prudent continuum is subjective, you were absolutely on target in pointing out the unbelievable risk level in Richard Harmon's portfolio in comparison to yours, that is, your portfolio, regardless of the presence or absence of UNVC, is unassailably quite low risk! We will not get to the bottom of that well, but thank you not only for changing your portfolio, but, in essence, strongly suggesting Richard Harmon change his. I am in complete agreement with you that there is more than simply the appearance of an egregious double standard here: there is the fact that Harmon's portfolio is SUBSTANTIALLY more risky than your's or anyone else's.
Finally, Mike Murphy is going to lose his pledge, like all the rest of us. He has had to spend more than enough time on this series of challenges and counter-challenges. In my view, both you AND he have handled this situation extremely poorly: you by deliberately antagonizing the entire thread and he by acting on his prerogative in a completely inappropriate manner. Both of you could have put this fire out in a nanosecond if the will had been present. Both of you deserve admonishment for the initial provocative behavior and complements for clear acts of contrition and resolution.
=================
If you had presented that sort of well-balanced reply, John, the word 'partially' would not have been necessary in my opening sentence today.
Ron Hellendall
[As I have PMed to others, I have been a contributor to Save the Children for almost 3 decades. I won't 'designate' it any more or less than the Atheism cause since 'worthwhile' (or 'controversial') tags for charitable organizations are, to use your term John, 'subjective'.
I couldn't give a flying hoot to which charity folks give their money if I win the contest.
Just as long a they make (a) charitable contribution(s).] |
