Shorts - thanks for the "white flag," but I do have to respond. I've enjoyed our little "battle of wits" and could raise that old nugget about taking advantage of he who is unarmed, but I digress into specific responses.
you were wrong and I was right! Why is that so hard for you to understand!
Again, you mention no specific post so it's impossible for me to understand how I was wrong. You may have been right, but one almost has to look at an empty post and guess every possible scenario if interpretation of said post is open to this.
I say stock A is a scam because they put out false lying and misleading Media Promotions to sell there stock to some other person
There is nothing wrong with your sentence by itself. I don't like promotions and I have posted as such. I don't see how that makes me "wrong." In similar fashion, you posted bullishly about a stock ANVH that promised a dividend. I, posted here, that it looked like this company was selling shares. Now I see you posting similarly. So, it looks like I was "right," even though I claim no credit for any brilliant deduction there. It was pretty obvious.
As to the rest of your post, you put words in my mouth. I do ask questions, ask for specifics. What is wrong with that? One should not be afraid to support an opinion with actual "facts." Many times, I prefer not to give an opinion but to have discussion and discovery of issues. So, often there is no "right" or "wrong." Again, unlike you apparently, I don't claim to be right 100% of the time on 100% of posts. In fact, I often post no opinion. Is there something wrong in doing that?
So, in closing, as I take you at your word that you are through here, I don't believe any objective reader would believe from your posts that I brutally attacked you or that you showed that I was "wrong" in any specific post.
That's not to say I haven't been wrong often in the past and will be in the future.
Again, as to being right 100% of the time, I leave that to you, Mr. Infallible.
Happy Birthday! :-) |
