Doug, Reread the post please. That's exactly what I did.
Me in my original post: Rephrasing points already made as defense against rephrased points is of no value.
You in your reply: Why not also direct this to those who are making the rephrased points back to me, then? It seems that if a collection of individuals are all responding to me, and I reply to each of them, why is it that I'm the problem? Why aren't they as a group equally "of no value"? My guess is that it's because I hold an unpopular view.
Me also in my original post: Thread, ... Just please do not rephrase points already made. It doesn't add the tiniest bit of value.
So you're wrong that I was not asking the very same of your discussion partners. The only way to stop discussions that only rephrase points already made is that almost all persons in the discussion are wise enough to stop it.
That happens to include you. To me it seems that you rather often want to have the last word. Which is why your discussions go on and on (you "reply to each of them"). It's a reasonably normal social characteristic to stand above this and stop stalking first. I think this is one of the two keys to why you got yourself banned last time. The other key imo is that you overreact when someone steps slightly on your toes and by doing that it can escalate a discussion into a personal attack. These two things are I think the basis of why you turned a group of people here against you (they're now biased as a result of how you discussed your points in the past) - just my opinion of course. I think this bias can logically be overcome by changing the basics of your discussion - prove them wrong in their bias. You don't need to have the last word in a discussion, just as much as your discussion partner doesn't either. Knowing when it becomes too much for a large part of the group is an important social skill. You probably hate me saying this but can you honestly tell me this isn't true?
Just to make this clear too: You know that I value your content quite a bit, and that I think this is essential for good discussion partner.
re: I happen to believe that people who complain about post volume should learn to use the ignore function, and pay to have it, if they don't. I also believe that their complaints are a false front for objection to bearish viewpoints. Many of these same folks also favor additional "tyranny of the majority" rules that would ensure the thread becomes a consensus of bullish groupthink. It's a very odd position to hold for an investor, this sports fan mentality.
No, in this particular example there's a large group here agrees with you to the extent that they think it isn't at least entirely certain if K8L is scheduled for summer '07 already. I'm among this group too. Some completely disagree with you but let them. About the whole thread knows there's a good bit of uncertainty on this point, so at a certain moment it becomes counter productive for the thread to reiterate it again and again without more data. Rephrasing points adds zero value. There's a large group here that agrees with this viewpoint that each post should add value and this group is rather obviously asking you to stop the pointless reiteration. They're asking you earlier than previously because of what happened in the past. IMO this group is within their rights because they're only asking for things normal to good group behaviour. Should you really be asking any large group here to change to accommodate your way of discussing items? By far most people here like your content, and your partially contrarian view, but a lot however e.g. don't like the many reiterations.
re: Regarding your afterthought, I doubt that many investors in the stock trade it on the basis of K8L timing yet, even if they should.
You're basically right. That's partly why I added the smiley. The comment might have had another purpose too.
Regards,
Rink |
