To: tanoose who wrote (7864 ) 4/3/1998 11:50:00 PM From: Carl Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10836
Frank, I thought my post was very clear, but judging from your reaction, I guess it wasn't. So let me explain. I began my post with "To All", which includes everyone, long, short, medium, and "on the fence". It was posted to you only because it was convenient to respond to the last post (yours by coincidence), but it was not directed at you. I apologize if you misunderstood. For the record Frank, I am not "on the fence", unless of course you're referring to the fact that I'm not a pompous, arrogant long, or a name-calling, abusive short. If that's what you mean, then I plead guilty. I'll sit happily on the fence with others who don't claim to have a lock on the truth. My opinion as to what will happen in this case is public knowledge, posted many months ago. I still believe what I wrote then: - The court case is very complicated - If KRY loses, the stock will be halted and open under $2 - If they win, it will not be a clear victory and there will be more litigation - The current stock price already discounts a KRY "victory" - Hence, I'm on the fence at these prices I don't claim to have any special knowledge or secret sources as some here do. These are just my personal opinions and as such, may be flawed. If I'm proven wrong, I'll happily congratulate those who called it correctly. If I'm right, I'll come back here and rub your face in it for months to come :-). My post this morning still stands, Frank. It's directed at people on both sides of the "fence". I just can't understand why both camps are so insecure that they must constantly pump the same opinions over, and over, and over. If you check back, you'll see that most of my posts to this thread have been my objections to personal attacks on myself and others. Good luck to you.