mqmsi: I must say that your note is one of the most thickheaded of any I have ever seen on this thread, and when you considereth some of the mental cases that inhabiteth this thread, that wasn't easy.
Have you never seen a publication do what is called a "follow up article"? Back when this near-worthless pup had a market cap in the hundreds of millions and was taken seriously by the investment community, Barron's stuck its neck out and said it was a fraud and that its process would not work. Well, its process didn't work and now the SEC is calling it a fraud. Barron's is pointing out that its analysis was correct, and had investors followed its advice they would be better off as a result. Are you suggesting that publications should only do follow up articles on bullish predictions that worked out?
And since when do posters here have to "earn the right" to post? Is this like a authoritarian country where there is total freedom of the press, provided of course, that the writer meets government standards of being "responsible"?
As to poor Mr. Rendall, with his millions of shares, did you forget the million or so shares he sold at substantially higher prices when the stock was making its final swoon? Oh that is right--he said he didn't authorize them to be sold; all he did was take out a margin loan against them, and then he was shocked, shocked! that the brokerage firm dumped his shares when the loan got in danger.
Sov-Ex has been very good to Mr. Rendall over the years, so I don't blame him for trying to extract one more round from the old nag. I am sure he appreciates your support. |
