Mr. Brubaker - I was responding to your remark that read:
<< it certainly was misleading >>. If by this you did not mean Ed was deliberately misleading, only mistaken [in hindsight], then maybe you should have phrased it that way instead. But the words and tone (to me anyway) seemed to imply some sinister intent on his part - and I think you know better than that. On the other hand, if you were not implying that, then fine, I withdraw my indignation.
It always seems to amaze me (for the benefit of the doubt, present company excepted): that certain persons get all worked up about opinions on companies they don't even own. I could understand it better if they were holding paper losses or sold at a loss and were angry about that - but why would someone with no apparent financial interest in a company get into acrimonious arguments on that stock's discussion group? Where's the payoff? There are "misleading statements" perpetrated by thousands of companies and their stockholders and officers every day of the year. If you don't own the stock, by what criteria would you choose that thread out of all others to rail against perceived deception? And besides, why would anyone get into a lather about it in the first place, if the deception did not affect them? I will now answer my own question - The reason, IMO, is that the real deception is in the disingenuousness of these self-appointed "champions of truth". In fact, these flag-enwrapped "moralists" are really there for purposes other than the surface contents of their "arguments". The reality is quite something else: it's the perfect venue for the impotent, the inadequate, the cowardly and the insecure to verbally hit and run and get away with it. Under the cybercover of relative anonymity and bogus indignations they can take aim from a safe distance. They can sound more important and formidable to themselves and others than they really are. They are particularly fascinated that their words are travelling thousands of miles and read by hundreds of people. The hotter their flaming, the more potent and formidable they feel. Plus, they obtain a free forum they wouldn't normally have to unload their puny resentments and at the same time convince themselves that they are elevating these to the level of the consequential. They bait their opponents, who unfortunately take the bait and then a round of ad hominem indignities begins. The first thing to go out the window is rational discourse, and the second is decent information. I think we all know who the adults are here - they are the ones who don't bait and the ones who don't allow themselves to be baited.
If you disagree with the above, fine, that is your privilege. But what I just wrote really is my honest opinion, and I want to repeat that I'd see like to see more fairness and respect here - in the long run it's the best way. [IMHO] |
