Once again you are incorrect. When Cisco stock was at $28 or $29, I said the risk of Cisco stock going lower was close to nil. You said that I was factually in error, which is a ridiculous statement, as I was chatting about an opinion of mine based on everything I know, not based on an in depth statistical analysis.
Man, it appears logic has abandoned you. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the risk of CSCO stock going lower at that time was not "close to nil", so you were factually incorrect. That means I was right, and you were wrong. How you conclude the opposite is perplexing.
However, since then the stock has moved up to $30. So we're still in anecdotal land here, but at least the anecdotal evidence is supporting my earlier claim that there was very low risk of it going down further.
Again, logic has abandoned you. That A happened does not prove that there was a very low risk of B at the time. When a slot player hits the jackpot on a given pull, that does not mean that there had been a very low chance that he would miss the jackpot on that same pull. In fact, the opposite was true.
CSCO's recent appreciation does not prove your claim that the downside risk to CSCO, at that time, was close to nil. In fact, it doesn't prove much of anything. You agree, right?
Keep digging your own hole, Elroy. I'm always interested in watching how deep you dig it.
I'm digging the hole to try to unearth you as a muddled confusion seems to have buried you way down there! |
