T.G.W., you may be a friend of mine, but I still don't appreciate how you operate. Now, for a moment, I will totally dispense with my sarcasm. Everything from this point on to my next witty comment is serious...
You claim to want "...discussions of the pros and cons of the stock." However, much as you accuse the longs of not wanting to discuss the cons of the stock, you have no interest in acknowledging the pros! I posted my list of "pros" and "cons" for the express intent of engaging in rational discourse (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=5251228). You ignored it completely. All you do is post the same old tired questions that I and many others have specifically answered. Why don't you at LEAST call into question our responses to YOUR questions instead of merely reposting the questions without acknowledgement? Actions such as that are what really damage your credibility.
T.G.W., I personally have no interest in engaging in a prolonged discourse of the merits of GLOW with someone who agrees with me! I already know most of the merits! (I do appreciate NEW information and I understand the reposting of old information for the benefit of new members of the thread). I want to discuss with someone who DOESN'T agree with me! It's a heckuva lot more fun matching wits in a debate than it is to participate in a mutual appreciation club.
T.G.W., I have pointed out several complete falsehoods in your posts (I hate using the term "lie" because it has such a negative connotation and it implies intent, which I have no way of knowing for certain). You have not acknowledged a single one! Notice that, for the exception of insults that are hurled my way, I respond directly and specifically to EVERY SINGLE CONTRADICTORY POINT that someone makes to me. I may use a little sarcasm and wit, and I'm sorry you are so offended by it, but, nevertheless, I have refuted every point.
To me, a rational discussion is one where two people take turns addressing a specific point until 1 of 3 things occur: (1) One admits they were wrong and the other was correct; (2) The two ultimately "agree to disagree" when not enough information is available to resolve the dispute; or (3) The two end up arguing two different points when the original point was too vague to be mutual understood. The two points them become separate discussions.
It is a sign of insecurity when, instead of acknowledging another has made a good point or might be correct (in other words, has refuted you with facts), you ignore the post or change the topic of discussion.
I fully expect you to respond to this post by dismissing it in its entirety instead of specifically addressing points I have made. I hope I am wrong! I look forward to the day when I can engage in a decent discussion with someone who doesn't believe GLOW is a good investment. Without a devil's advocate, it is human nature to tend to justify the investment rather than call it into question.
You still are and always will be my all time best friend!! (Can you guess where the seriousness stopped?)
You Best Bulletin Board Buddy,
GO BIG RED!!
PS - I couldn't resist, I said a little prayer for your future endeavors last night! Sorry, won't happen again!
|
