To: shortsinthesand who wrote (66 ) 12/17/2006 10:58:11 AM From: rrufff Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 150 With all due respect, I think the problem here is that you want to categorize with absolutes to fit your opinion and agenda and then you back off, when cornered, and try to explain. You say you are bearish and I am bullish. From the posts I cited, I've probably been as bearish in the past. I'm not bullish on the stock at this point. The fact I trade stocks does not make me a wild bull. I evaluate all my stocks day to day and determine whether they are good trades, or longer term value plays. The fact that a company has problems does not mean that those problems are not priced in. Panic selling often leads to good buying opportunities. A good trader needs to be flexible. You lie about my posts and say that I have been a "strong supporter." I believe I am more objective than you in my own analyses of stocks. I specifically posted my reservations about dilution and my recommendations that the company reconsider its prior actions and disclosures. I've cited my posts, ones which you apparently purposely left off, in an attempt to categorize my posts in a negative light, and cited rather my opinions of the stock price. Most posters do the same. They say a stock is going higher or lower. You do the same when you say a stock price is going down. I try to avoid price predictions. If anything, my posts are too verbose and analytical. I think this is why people do follow my posts. I am objective and not always bullish. You, on the other hand, merely wish to criticize. I think you'd be a bit more successful in your bashing career if you were able to give a more balanced approach. Every speculative stock can be bashed and each can be praised. I challenged you to mention a stock or two that you like. I'm not surprised that you failed to meet the challenge. It's easier to sit back and be a back seat driver, a critic who looks back and says, "you were wrong."