"I admit that I am a little disappointed in Math, though I believe he felt picked on by Kirk and had a right to feel that way on the name flap."
It's not at all clear to me what you're disappointed about.
"What it shows is that the Brinkers monitor these sites with great vigor."
Good for them.
"We can safely assume that the claim that was there prior to July 16 is not true."
You can assume anything you like, but I prefer not to pass judgement on his claim without having access to Hulbert's back issues.
"Having watched mistertopes through the saga of STII, when caught red handed try to weasel and not let go of the lie, I have little confidence that the 'fall back postion' will turn out to be accurate but it will come out."
I prefer not to make predictions when I don't have the facts.
My observation of his STII posts that you quoted is that he was using the technique that Kirk pointed out, where he answers a different question than what was asked, and he also responds to a different point than what was made. He did this again in the recent QQQQ call on the radio. There's a name for this: it's called a non sequitur. If you read that exchange carefully, you can see that he is careful to never make any statement that is, by itself, untrue. The dishonesty is always in the form of addressing a different issue than the one that is on the table. We've seen this as his consistent practice over many years. The claims of lying about his Hulbert ratings are totally out of character from this long-established practice, because, if the claims are true, it would amount to an actual fabrication, rather than the usual misdirection. That's why this whole business puzzles me, and why I suspect we still don't have the whole story. |
