tonyt, >> If you follow the links, you'll see what I mean << I think your argument is based on a fallacy. Specifically, your opening postulation that Henry was answering FUGAZI's first question is less logical than that he was answering the second question, because FuGAZI, himself, supplied an answer to his own first question. By selecting question number one, instead of question number two, you have taken out of context a question that was answered by the questioner himself. In fact, it appeared to be a rhetorical question. On the second question, FUGAZI solicited an answer without supplying one.
Question # 0ne from FUGAZI , " Did LGND take the money & run, or did they select a drug?"
Answer by FUGAZI , " Some seemed to be confident that we'd learn of their decision this week. I guess not."
Question # Two by FUGAZI, " Anyone have any comments on this?"
The "this" refers to his having discussed the trading range that LGND seemed to be trapped in.
You took Henry's answer to question # two , " Watch what happens on Monday." and proclaimed, despite his protestations to the contrary, that his answer was to the first question instead of the second.
By fortuitous circumstance, the company supplied a different answer this afternoon to question # one than FUGAZI, himself, had. For anyone to jump to a conclusion that Henry was providing a stock tip is ,IMO, an extraordinary reach.
Then, you assumed that the statement, " there is nothing specific on Monday for LGND" is a denial of Henry's expectation that the stock would be up on Monday. This statement is not a denial of his opinion that the stock would rise. Instead it was a statement that he had no non public info that buttressed his guess. His following statement, " FUGAZI, watch what happens this Monday" is merely a reiteration of his feeling that the stock would probably be positively influenced by the excitement shown on this thread & his website on Friday & later.
His next statement, " I don't think anyone said there would be a press release today" denies that he inferred such a happening.
I agree with your statement, " The sequence of events is clear. If you follow the links, you'll see what I mean."
How could we see the same thing so differently? Bernie |
