>> I do think that sometimes there is a real lack of tolerance for dissenting views here.
Which was my point. Your comments weren't "dissenting" in any way whatsoever. They were honest-to-goodness, legitimate questions, but as I said, every question around here is/was interpreted by some to be a swipe at Joe. That's absolute BS. Now granted, there have been some who raised questions in an insincere and dishonest fashion, and thank goodness they are or appear to be gone. And there have been some who have stepped WAY over the line and questioned the integrity of some. They also appear to be gone, or at least to be lurking.
I also believe that the rah-rah tendencies have subsided, which is also good, particularly for new investors. It seems that some of what gets posted here is more appropriate as private messages, since they are more wink-and-nod than anything else.
We've lost some decent posters, apparently, like JJ and Cody and the like, but I sense that they are still here, only in the background. And of course, it was groovy when the Murph was able to post, but I assume that he and we are better off that he's not, given the troublesome posters that seemed to want to take a shot at him on a regular basis.
I appreciate the analysis offered by Bruce, Joe Med. and James, the wit and whim of the peepster and of course, George's reports from the Damien front. These good folks endeavor to respond to queries, interpret events, or merely entertain. Much appreciated, particularly after a tough day at the OTC, etc.
Most of all, I appreciate the Murph's steady hand on the keel. I have a lot of money riding on his horse, and I'm sitting back in my seat with my feet up.
Ken
P.S. As to the Medsker's "no" to second chances vis-a-vis 4/29, I'll drink to that! |
