Bill, what I still can't believe is the fact that someone either advised him to come in here or failed to advise him NOT to. And the way I'm reading the guy, it could be possible he was advised not to come in here, but being the "tough guy" he is, he just did it anyway.
Total stunned disbelief. It's BEYOND mind-boggling.
The head of a publicly traded company, who could reasonably be foreseen to have some risk of potential exposure on a given matter comes into a public electronic forum and produces an electronic "paper trail" of comment on the matter?
And as if THAT wasn't risky enough...
He decides that he'll also freely opine on a totally unrelated issue - how the historical reproductive tendencies of members of two of the world's largest organized religions may have lead to a genetic pre-disposition regarding the average intelligence level of a member of each? Obviously, in the event, however remote it may be, that in the end the matter is resolved before a jury, that certainly will do wonders to win their sympathies. And the fact that he thinks it's just a little bit of academic discourse isn't what matters at that point. How do you think an individual with certain deeply-held beliefs is going to take that?
And then he comes out with his statements on how the tragic death of a woman with some degree of political and popular-culture signficance was somehow justified in his mind?
And then he throws out something about how going to a certain clinic can do wonders for one's eating and drinking habits? You can't draw any hard conclusions from that mention, but the mere fact that it was mentioned is likely to set off a whole slew of bells and whistles in the eyes of a lawyer sizing this thing up.
And then he leaves with a "final" post whose general tone is - "well thanks for letting me play in your sandbox; see you later"? An attitude that seems to bely the point of exactly how far into the stratosphere this guy's ego-balloon is flying?
And then he leaves the threat hanging that he might come back under a non de plume?
And it's ABUNDANTLY OBVIOUS that the man who we have been lead to believe is John Westergaard, was quite unwilling to answer the hard questions a lot of people asked.
And the reason I use the term "lead to believe" is as follows:
Anyone ever notice the way he's been signing his posts? Can you say "not consistently"?
John W
Joh
JW
Westergaard
That's proves nothing, but it does raise some degree of doubt for me when I consider that fact that A) the man is an editor/publisher on an on-line publication with paid writers on staff B) the quasi-byline on some of the stories on his site reads "edited by" whereas others read "reporting".
And if it doesn't lead you in that direction, doesn't it at least make you think - "what's up with that?" Some of the posts are within minutes of each other, and yet are signed differently? Why? What would cause that?
And who knows what's happening over at his site? More "success" stories?
Good trading,
Tom |
