I've PMed you, but you know what? I am going to post this to prove to you that all people contain faults within them (I know... I said I never post, but time changes all that).
I am not guiltless myself of what some people may deem as "crimes."
The problem is that this country that we live in will not legitimize their claim.
Nothing satisfies you.
You're wrong, Allen. It's not that nothing satisfies me. It's that the thing that satisfies me can never be achieved. I have been consistent with one thing since my entrance onto these boards: trying to find out the truth behind every situation. Because these boards provide an anonymity for people to hide behind, everything is subject to interpretation and opinion. And the bottom line is, because there is no way to fully grasp the concept of a human being, a soul, due to an opinion of a stock, there is no way to fully grasp the character of a human.
You can say what you will about me, Allen. You can say that you have done less "illegal" things than I have. But to say that, Allen, would be very idealistic of you, don't you think? Also, why must we stop at the stock forum to fully grasp how a person views the legitimacy of the law? Why don't we view each other's entire lives? I ask you: what guidelines will the authorities measure our words and actions? The law of the United States of America?
The only way to judge who is "better" than one another in the eyes of the law, is to show how many laws have been broken. I claimed to you that neither of us broke any law, and you still want a trial. I will completely agree to this because I feel guiltless about that which I have done.
I don't object to the authorities viewing my records and reviewing my posts, as that will get me closer to me understanding my discrepancies. What I did object to is the fantastical ideal situation that you're portraying. That, which you have described, is an "ideal court of law," and not a practical one. Who is able to judge that which has not been set down in stone by law?
In light of a conversation that I had with Cavewoman (who, btw, is a very intelligent woman), I am apologizing to Ellen and JMO, and I am giving an explanation as to why I keep attacking you. Cavewoman made an incredibly important discovery in this respect: this board has officially replaced the Golden Rule (the rule that Jesus taught from the Parable of the Good Samaritan) with lex talonis (the roman law of "an eye for an eye"). For seeing this, I look upon her as very perceptive to what has transpired.
Why has this occured on this board and not on the board of, say, Apple Computer? It's a very simple explanation. On here, there was an idealistic crusade lead by Riley that based on pure faith and speculation. The question of "Could this work?" was attacked, which naturally transformed the question to the answer of "It will work, stupid!" Why was this transformation natural? Because there were holes in the ideology to begin with.
But what the naysayers (and I) didn't seem to understand was that these holes were not that important to most of the cartel, who had been pursuaded by faith and self-interest (which is not a bad thing by any means) that a short squeeze could work. One of the posts that Ellen had done on OVIS alluded to that. She said something to the effect of "sure, the fundamentals aren't great, but we're gung ho on this short squeeze concept!" What I failed to recognize that in order for this thing to work, truth had to take a backseat to faith.
That legitimizes my claim as a swaysayer, a person who did not ignore any of the holes. But because of my pursuit for the truth, I have gotten into trouble from both sides. Although it is a natural impulse to fight back, it is a comforting feeling to know that at least I'm provoking thought in some way.
Ellen, I don't know you. To say that I do is a ridiculous comment. I don't know how you interact with your family, and I don't know how you feel after I rip you to shreds. For my failure to grasp who you really are, I apologize.
Allen, I don't know you either. To state that I have a clue as to the meaning behind indiscrepancies is idealistic and stupid of me. For my misunderstanding of your character and judgement, I apologize.
My ideal world is one in which everyone can admit to having faults. That is why I attacked, which delegitimizes my point of view on the matter. But let me be a person to join this ideal world so that at least I can be happy.
The Evil Dead |
