Well the assumption is that I was a total screaming
bull on KRY's chances. It is true that I have oft
stated the positive and truthful account of their
chances and their case. This was to balance the
opinion that they had no chance or were misleading
the market. They had a chance and they did not
mislead. The forces that turned the tide for Dome
are still not known to many of the beneficiaries of
the events that have come to pass. I suspect
strongly that as the money on the line was major
and the beneficiaries of that money flow having
extremely corrupt tendencies, that that sort of
influence had a hand. That it would be more
realistic to assume that such force would always
triumph in any contest is perhaps giving the dark
side a bit too much credit. That no one at all would
wonder a bit about the fact that actual recorded
title still belongs to KRY must give us pause, a
"tad" as they say. That some would scream, Dome
honchos included, that "title" now "belongs to Minca"
due to the refusal of the court to quash the MEM
resolutions that the court itself had said were
technically forfeit anyway on two occasions, is a
"tad" weird.
The denial of the facts, both before and after the
decision tells me that the level of commentary on
this case, which refuses to look at the mountain of
infamy before them, is not just ostrich like, but
obfuscatory and to no end of beneficial
enlightenment.
My record on this case is not known to you apparently.
That is simply because my advice that I give to customers
is reserved for their eyes only. It is my private
thought on the way they should look at the matter
realistically. However if one looked at the body
of evidence of what I have said over time since early
1997 on SI I have not wavered in my approach to the
investment issue and it could be gleaned that the
investment in the stock was not unreserved. If you prefer
instead to quarrel with my preference on who should
win and my reasons thereof then perhaps you miss the
point. (not perhaps at all. you missed the point period)
Your reference that my customers should learn something
form this could be construed to mean that I have led
them down the garden path. Thanks for the subtle hint.
If they had listened to my careful and denotative
advice on how to play the stock that would not have
been the case.
If you must jump to conclusions, do it from a basis
where it is safe to assume, as in what you are up to.
EC<:-} |
