Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Casaubon who wrote (38939)	8/13/2002 4:41:43 PM
From: TimbaBear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

Casaubon Excuse me for quoting you. If you don't like to be quoted, don't post to a public forum. Finally, you are a repulsive nut case. I'm not sure how you will spin that this comment furthers the discussion of accounting gimmicry, but it says volumes about the poster. I haven't personally attacked you, although I have taken issue with some of your positions. If you choose to believe that a derived number for an expense is more accurate than a real one, so be it. This investor chooses otherwise. Given the direction of the market over the last 27 months or so, I suspect I'm not the only one. In essence, you are suggesting the use of historical volatility I am suggesting nothing other than what I posted, which was for two new regulations to be implemented and enforced: 1). Allow no dilution to ownership equity due to the exercise of stock options and 2). for the company to treat the cost of the stock purchased to prevent such dilution as an expense against earnings. PPS The tenet of my conversation has never been clarity in reporting... That says volumes. I see you are the kind of person who pulls a sentence out of context and tries to spin an unintended meaning, using inuendo and insinuation. So, for the sake of any normal people following this discusion, I will correct your implied message, again. You wrote, "So...under the method of accounting for options via the Black Box (excuse me, Black-Scholes) system, in this scenario the company would have recorded an expense it didn't have....and you believe this promotes clarity in reporting?" I replied, "the tenet of my conversation has never been clarity in reporting though I believe options expensing will lead to greater clarity in accounting" You took it out of context and wrote: "the tenet of my conversation has never been clarity in reporting..." You wrote then wrote, "That says volumes." (with your slimy implication being that I am trying to somehow deceive innocent investors). This does say volumes to me. It says that accurately informing the investor is of less concern to you than accurately following accounting standards. Given the current state of accounting and the growing distrust of the efficacy of that system for informing investors of what they need to know, your statement does say volumes. By you assuming that I subscribe any thought of your position as "slimy" also says volumes to me. That you are willing to attack me personally before verifying that your interpretation of my comment was anywhere near valid also says volumes. It could be that you are simply stressed out in your life, tired, hungry....I don't know. Since I seem to have a decidedly negative impact on your emotional well-being, I suggest we discontinue our conversations. I have presented the way that I would like to see the accounting and regulatory changes to go regarding this issue and you have presented what you believe to be the best way to proceed. I suspect that our individual opinions are held deeply enough that neither will be significantly swayed from here (at least not by each other if this series of discussions is any indication). I wish you well. TimbaBear