Linda,
Thank you for your thoughts. While I don't agree with your assessment that Keith didn't want his professional background disclosed (if you recall it was his "consulting" relationships that he felt were confidential), the information is a matter of public record. There is nothing "unethical" about this fact.
Furthermore, no one ever asked the good doctor to come around to "mislead" people (which he has done with many facts). This was something that he undertook on his own behalf (or on the behalf of others). In my opinion, this is "unethical" for a physician, regardless if we are talking about the merits of an investment.
Also, the perceived "threat" that you cited is your issue. Nothing in my post was "threatening" or could be perceived as "threatening" (unless you are paranoid). I did nothing more than acknowledge that I'm onto this fellow and his game. To understand that he has involved himself in other areas where he is not an "expert" places his posts in the proper context. While you perceive my post as a "threat", nothing could be further from the truth.
Now, as for your opinions about my decision to remain anonymous, that is your opinion, but it is certainly not "unethical". I think you need to take a class in ethics because you frivolously throw the term around with blatant disregard. I choose not to disclose my identity. You choose to do so. Big deal. Does that make you "ethical"?
Lastly, I only suggested that you go by his office because you are located in NYC. That information is publicly available in your previous SI posts.
BTW, what is your opinion of Dr. Keith's misstatements regarding facts? Isn't that "unethical"?
Tokyo |
