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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (69565)	9/9/2006 8:34:38 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

I just re-read your post. If you want to pretend that I did not answer your questions that is perfectly fine by me. Mish, you posted that response just two minutes after i posted my last message (msg 69564). considering you did not see my last message immediately (unless you were waiting by the screen all day for it and refreshing incessantly), and considering you would have to navigate back to my post in question (msg 69496 on this board), and considering that, after "re-reading" it, you needed to come back to my last message (69564) and then write and submit the above response to it, i'd say you spent no more than 60 seconds, probably no more than 30 seconds, "re-reading" my post. well, my post was 866 words long. it included numerous transitions in quoted author (indicated by italics for you, bold italics for me). it included four hyperlinks which you would need to click and read to have fully comprehended what i wrote--taking the word count up to around 4000 words. i also spent quite a bit of time in my 866-word post discussing the precise meanings of individual words, like "some" and "forever". individual words throughout the text were put in "quotes", bolded, or put in ALL CAPS for "EMPHASIS". not to mention the liberal use of en-dashes and em-dashes--the latter a device intended expressly to slow the reader down. and let's not forget the deliberate spelling errors which were meaningful within the context of our "debate". i don't think it's the type of thing one speed-reads through very effectively. but mish, you claim you read and fully grokked these 4000 words in 30-60 seconds. LOL what's more, in your post 69525, you provide even more proof that you did not understand what i wrote back in msg 69496: Exactly what about that article implies local markets or Danville? in fact, in msg 69496 i explained quite precisely why i was speaking about Damnville, and why it took me so long to even find the article you copied (your "source"). you would not have written the above if you'd actually understood the 866 words in msg 69496 and the 3000 words in the supporting posts. so mish, i must say i don't believe your claim at all. i always feel like you don't even understand where i'm coming from. which is why i don't want to waste more time "debating" you.