Alan Miller
It seems to me that you, too, are dangerously close to suggesting that 'decent arguments' are allowed on the Stockhouse thread. Who exactly is the arbiter of what a 'decent argument' looks like? Is it any anonymous poster who has the power to dash off a note to the Administrator? Is there some agreed upon standard that is applied to all, without exception? Moreover, you seem to want to ignore the fact of the abuse and intimidation that prevents many from posting. However, if you are firm in your resolve that the Stockhouse thread is conducive to free and open discussion, I have no further interest in attempting to disabuse you of that notion. I am prepared to accept that we disagree.
I fail to see what possible relevance my portfolio might have to anything I might have posted. If I claimed to have purchased 100,000 shares of Crystallex, would it make any of my posts more cogent? If I claimed to have shorted 100,000 shares, would my posts be even further diminished in your eyes? Whatever the case, and for no other reason than to satisfy what I must conclude is no more than idle curiosity, I have neither bought nor sold any shares in Crystallex since I last mentioned my portfolio. I hold no shares of Crystallex. Barring some sudden and completely unforeseen epiphany, that is unlikely to change.
With respect to the 'diminishment' of my posts, my own approach is to assess each argument on its own merits. Unless there is some specific argumentative link between posts, I wouldn't use one to judge another. Your own approach, I suggest, is overly harsh, more than a little unreasonable, and carries implications which render it nonsensical. If, for example, by dint of great effort and luck someone were able to condense an irrefutable proof of Fermat's Theorem to fifty pages or so and post it here; and were to follow that post with an insupportable argument that the sun orbits the earth; I don't see how the latter would in any way diminish the former. But you are free to proceed as you wish.
Further on 'diminishment', the claim contained in your statement "...diminishes the intelligence of observant shareholders", is what is formally known as a non sequitur. It doesn't follow from your premises. Laying aside formality, the claim is simply nonsense. How could any claim that I might make diminish any shareholder's (observant or not) intelligence.
You need have no concern over the foregoing on two fronts. First, I will not judge anything you have posted in the past or might post in the future based on this nonsense. Second, you need have no concern that this nonsense will diminish your posts in the eyes of many on Stockhouse. In fact, many seem to think it is wonderful. I see it has already made the high-light reels in 'KRY Komments'. As I read the situation, this is further evidence that it matters very little whether a post makes any sense. What matters is that it makes people feel good. You have clearly hit the mark.
Much of my posting on this thread has been driven by a deep-seated, possibly perverse and ultimately untenable belief that people have the capacity to work through these issues reasonably and need not rely on Charters, Teddie, Carson, and so on. Perhaps it is already clear to many that it is not the case that this capacity can actually be transformed into a capability. In the end, perhaps relying on their ability to reason through the issues would turn out far worse than trusting it all to someone else. If you are one of those (and I hope you aren't), all I can say is: If the jack-boot fits, you might as well wear it.
At the end of the day, if Crystallex prevails it will matter little whether or not you have benefited from facts and sound reasoning, fiction and fallacious reasoning, or from blind faith.
Regards. |
