"If PNH were me, I'd demand that you, Octavian, groanerDaLiar and MathJunkie explain why you keep such close track of what Brinker's critics have to say about him or how we invest and why that matters one iota when discussing Brinker and his cover-ups so he can sell the idea he ads value timing the markets."
Here is the answer to your question: The person most deserving of the term Brinker critic is Octavian, because he discusses both the good and the bad of the subject's work, just like music, theater, and movie critics do. I pay close attention to what he has to say because I find his posts worth reading.
As for you who call yourselves critics but are really bashers, I don't keep close track of what you say, because I only read a small percentage of your posts. Once in a while I will comment on something the bashers do, especially when their actions tend to reduce the diversity of viewpoints represented. And if you can't see why that matters to the Brinker discussion, I suggest you consider these words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
"To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
iml.jou.ufl.edu |
