anyone, I am not here to defend Ron or anyone else. As a matter of fact, just like here, on the GRNO thread, I have often had disagreements with him. I coined the term IEI (Irrational Exuberance Index) when posting on the GRNO thread, indeed, to counter some of Ron's more exuberant claims at the time. I do not know Ron personally more than I know you or any other poster here and on the GRNO thread.
I have never implied any criminality in the activities of the yays (or nays) on this or any other thread for that matter. GRNO was suspended, now there is a pending suit that "alleges" fraud and I think we should wait until this suit is resolved before we come to lynch defendents. This is our way in this country, and I think it is the right way.
RMIL has been suspended for some irregularities as well and I have never accused the yays of criminal or fraudulent activities. I have said (and was met with the same attitude as on the GRNO thread) many time last Autumn that this story may end up very badly, I have also stated that some authorities may construe the organization of stock holders to coordinate their buying and selling as collusion (which on the surface appears to have been the Cartel's goal). In all cases, I always explained rationally my point of view, a rarity on this thread.
What I do not understand is why should every argument we might have always lead to personal attacks? (double standards etc.) You are asking why I do not defend who? Riley?
One thing I will not do is post a defense of Riley, I will not even respond to his private E-messages to me. He engaged in my character assassination on this thread. He posted a private e-mail (which was directed to a third party not him) of mine in public, which means he'll stop at nothing. With all the very strong disagreements I had with Ron over the last two years, and there were many, these were always respectful disagreements. I have no respect for Riley and thus will not post in his defense. There are enough people to carry on that duty on this thread.
This thread's posting happen to be a voluntary activity. There is no duty of responding to any specific post. Yesterday you asked for a response, I did not have to respond, I chose to respond. Of course, for some reason or another you implied that the lack of response would indicate one thing or another. If I do not respond to a post, it simply implies that I may not have a response, or I am not interested in responding, or I do not have the time to respond and a thousand other reasons, all of which differ from what you implied the lack of response migh be.
This morning I exchanged few PM with one of this thread posters, he implied I am stupid enough to buy a bridge in Brooklyn. After two or three responses, it became obvious to me that I was engaged in sysiphian labor, and using my constitutional right not to respond, I stoped responding.
If you have any problem with this approach, I would not mind hearing it.
Zeev
|
