Graystone/Charters
Graystone: You wrote, "Hi Moot, you sure have a nice supply of words, always appreciated." Is it possible that you aren't a member of the 'less is more' school? I have to acknowledge your patience in reading through my posts, and ask you to bear with me once again.
There is a certain truth to the adage that 'less is more'. However, the 'more' is often the result of the inherent ambiguity of language and the necessity of interpretation. Consider, for example, the seemingly simple question: Why did Adam eat the apple? If this is interpreted in such a fashion that the emphasis is placed on 'why' (Why did Adam eat the apple?), it would probably evoke a response typically including references to 'Eve', 'Eden', 'snake', 'knowledge', and so on. If the emphasis is placed on 'did' (Why did Adam eat the apple?), it might invite a response addressing the difference between past, present, and future events. If it is placed on 'Adam' (Why did Adam eat the apple?), the answer might offer reasons for why it wasn't Dick or Jane. If placed on 'eat', perhaps reasons for not turning it into a fruit sculpture or throwing it away; and if 'apple', reasons why it wasn't a pear or a pomegranate. (The relevance of all this is coming.)
What I have tried to demonstrate above with the artifice of italics can also be achieved textually with a careful selection and presentation of words. Indeed, it is even possible to nudge a reader toward a specific interpretation of an otherwise ambiguous claim. In my opinion, both 'Dirt-Bag' Asensio and Roy 'Pulitzer' Carson employ this technique. From a purely technical aspect, Asensio seems to be much more proficient than Carson who relies heavily on varying font sizes, styles, and colours to achieve this effect. Asensio and Carson (and everyone else, for that matter) should be read with some critical attention in order to ferret out the ambiguities. I come now to the issues you raised in your post.
I think the following are the relevant premises of your first point:
1. From one of my posts: I think one would be hard-pressed to mount a credible argument to the effect that Mael/Crystallex had no claim to LC 4&6 at this point.
2. Asensio says: Specifically, Crystallex claims it has the rights to "Las Cristinas 4 & 6 gold concessions" and that "the Supreme Court of Venezuela is currently considering its application seeking to enforce its ownership rights over" these gold concessions. Both of these statements are false and untrue.
3. From another of my posts: Those who knowingly circulate or abet falsehoods are, in my opinion, scum.
If I understand your unstated minor premises correctly, I think the inference you want me to make is that, in my opinion, Asensio is scum. But there is nothing in the preceding, nor do I have any other knowledge, that would compel me to make such an inference.
For the sake of argument and time, I will assume that you have correctly quoted Asensio and that Crystallex has in fact made the cited claims. Consider the first claim: Crystallex claims it has the rights to Las Cristinas 4 & 6 gold concesssions. Is this claim true? I don't think so. If it were, it is unlikely this whole matter would be before the Court or that we would be having this discussion. Apart from being redundant, I don't see any fault with Asensio's statement that this claim is false and untrue. Consider the second claim: ...the Supreme Court of Venezuela is currently considering its application seeking to enforce its ownership rights over these gold concessions. Is this claim true? I don't think so. On the one hand, we have the report from the illustrious Roy Carson to the effect that the decision was made many weeks ago and has been in the typing pool and the announcement delayed for a number of reasons. If any credence is given to Carson, one has to conclude that the Court is not considering any such application inasmuch as it has already been decided. I don't lend much credence to Carson and suggest there is an even stronger argument to be made with respect to the truth or falsity of the claim. Specifically, as far as I know, the application before the Court is to annul certain resolutions of the MEM affecting the rights to LC 4 & 6. Even if the Court decides in favour of Mael/Crystallex, there will still be certain legal and administrative procedures which will have to be completed before any relevant rights are enforced. Again, I find no fault with Asensio's statement with respect to this matter. Asensio may be scum, but the premises you offer aren't strong enough to convince me that I should hold that opinion.
The second issue you raise concerns my stated surprise that someone would ask whether Asensio's claims regarding insider trading were true. You suggest that we all know that Asensio is fraudulent and the implication is that I shouldn't be at all surprised that someone would question anything he says. To begin with, I believe you have taken my statement out of context. If I recall correctly, my observation was made in the context of comments pointing out that Insider Trading Reports were freely and publicly available. I am surprised that someone would put such a question to a forum of largely anonymous posters. Why would anyone accept a response from 'Moot', for example, when in the length of time it took to compose the message they could access the official documentation and ascertain the facts themselves? I suppose that my surprise stems, in large part, from my persistent and unfounded assumption that investors would take the time to conduct their own due diligence--especially since insider trading has been such an issue with Crystallex. Finally, I do not know that Asensio is 'fraudulent'.
Eric: If you took the time to wade through this, 'its' is a possessive pronoun and 'it's' is an informal contraction. So, when you wrote "its E-T-H-I-C-S", I think you really wanted to write "it's E-T-H-I-C-S". Oh well, perhaps it is too much to expect that a polymath with expertise in geology, economics, geo-politics, national politics, organic law, and so on would not make a common error.
Regards. |
