Short is fine as long as the intention of the poster is known.
When the intention is masked, the DD, valid as it may be, is corrupted and substantially unusable. You never know what is fact and what is fiction or being driven by what motive.
I fully acknowledge that some of jhild's research has merit. It's necessary for me, and I would suspect most posters here, to know his motivation so I can be consistent in my evaluating what he posts.
Let's face it Howard, if I told you I was from the SEC and I was an attorney, and gave you all the info to back it up, my posting might be viewed differently.
If on the other hand, if I told you I was posting from the prison library in Toronto, owned no stock, and was willing to help you all because I had nothing to do with my time, I believe you'd view my postings yet another way. Even though I was posting the same info.
I only hope we would all have the presence of mind to want to know what I was sent up for and if it turned out that my crime was securities fraud, and I was still loosely associated with a certain Vancouver brokerage firm you might once again adjust your level of faith in my posts.
So, you see Howard, as good as jhilds DD appears to be we really have difficulty in judging the veracity of any of his statements, and in fact much of what appears to be solid DD, without some credentialing. After all, when he finds incriminating data and posts same, how do you know that more contemporaneous but contradictory positive data that jhilds might know how to access, and has not yet been published, exists?
Rich |
