For your information, here is the quote from my post #1144 that you claimed not to have seen: <<...That too was rejected for publication on Friday. At that point this Terri Cullen (the editor?) took over the article in effect firing Danialle who apparently did not have the right perspective on the story>> Notice the word "firing", Sergio?
As to your question concerning what I found not factual about the WSJ article, I refer you to my post #1169 which contained this statement:<< All I said was that the WSJ was a "hatchet-job" and, by that, I meant that the writer conveniently left out certain things that,if included, would have resulted in a more balanced article. >> The reason I can't answer your question, Sergio, is because I never once claimed that the article contained errors of fact. Your question was not relevant to any statements I have made so there was no need for me to answer it.
If you think Douglas has "the right spirit"...and I believe that he does as well...how is it that your post includes the following: "the humorless Faris", " the intolerant Geneat", etc. Wasn't Douglass calling for an end to name-calling and sarcasm?
Now, you seem to be upset that I answer your largely irrelevant question and the end of messages responding to other people. Well, Sergio, if you ever posted anything of a substantive nature concerning AIPN, information that was a result of research and analysis on your part, I would most certainly respond with a substantive reply. Until then, you will just have to settle for footnotes.
Your assertion that "People coming here for information should make a note that knowledgeable people who have reputations for posting reliable information have stopped posting on this thread because of Geneat and Faris." suggests that information posted by myself and others is not "reliable" I suppose by virtue of the fact that we are opptimistic about AIPN's potential. Well, Sergio, I challenge you to come with a single example of unreliable information that I may have posted on this thread., keeping in mind, of course, that I have every right to express opinions that I arrive at as a resultof my analysis and research.
Finally, in an earlier post you referred to the contents of my message #1169 as "nonsensical". Would you care to explain exactly what it was that I said that was non-sensical with explanations as to why? Now, I realize that that's a bit harder work than throwing around baseless accusations and insults. Give it a try anyway but, if you do, be careful to back up whatever you say with facts. Some of us have done our homewrk, have spoken to the company, are in touch with analysts, have read the research reports, and have given a greatdeal of thougt to the question of what may be going on behind the scenes in this story...and we actually read and understand the posts on this thread. Good luck!
Cheers...Faris
PS: I might add that new people coming to this thread might actually believe that you and some others participate here because you actually own AIPN shares. Little would they know that you seem to be, in reality, a trader who made one profitable trade with AIPN and would consider making another one if only the d----ned stock would go significantly South. I will not accuse you trying to kill the stock since I've already stated that opinion on this thread is not moving the stock. |
