I have two reactions to your post. 1) most of the objections to what Readware said that are cited strike me as pedantic, and weighted with poor judgment as to what matters. 2) I nonetheless harbor unease, which I felt from moment one, and which has never departed, about the authenticity of Readware.
One the one hand, he clearly knows a great deal about the sat. business. (However, someone who is or was in the business at a medium or higher level, esp. if in a business planning or financial area, no matter what his success or lack thereof at that level, might have such knowledge.) On the other hand, it is somewhat puzzling that he so consistently freely posts so much information. It is also a bit disturbing, if also somewhat understandable, that while serving as an expert, he does not in any clear way wish to establish his background, affiliation, or credentials.
My benign supposition, which I tend to favor, is that he is fully or partially retired, early or not, and is sharing his great deal of knowledge cause he loves his former work.
My less benign supposition starts with something like the above, but ends with his touting the stock with fair amounts of freely extrapolated/invented information, to support (hype) his own bets.
They didn't teach me to be unquestioningly trusting in a top law school. So shoot me.
Doug
P.S. as for what I mean by pedantic objections:
<<the "asteroid implosion" Readware describes as
having taken place last year was nothing of the sort. It was a
comet impact, and it took place in 1994. An "asteroid implosion"
would involve a non-cometary body collapsing in upon itself.
Nothing of the sort has ever been known to occur.>>
Implosion. Impact. Give us a break. Poor choice of words. Implosion was clearly badly chosen. Has the right sound to it, but "explosion", or "impact explosion" would have had the same or better sound, and been correct to boot. Pedantic objection. |
