To: Mama Bear who wrote (3130 ) 6/14/1998 8:55:00 PM From: Ron Harvey Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Barb, I don't want to read all that because it's not relevant. The issue is misstatements he has intentionally made about CCSI, the lack of balance, the assumptions presented as fact, not opinion, the use of guilt by association, the crocodile tears he sheds when he pretends his interest is in protecting investors from CCSI's depredations , and more, beginning with his repeated references to Chromatics as a BB stock, when he knows otherwise, and continuing with assertions of fraud provided without supporting evidence. If you don't think this is an unsavory and dishonest way to present a case, your compass is seriously awry, I think, in determining the difference between the moral high ground and the moral low ground. And if some of his arguments turn out to be correct, that does not, ipso facto, whitewash all of what he says via the underhanded means he's using. His seeming willingness to apply virtually any means to achieve his ends of dashing CCSI's stock price can't logically be defended by pointing to the fate of KRY or any other company or the defensiveness of investors in this stock or any other. The issue I commented on was whether you were consciously or unconsciously being hypocritical or not based on whether A. used unsavory methods to achieve his ends with CCSI. That is, the issue was the nature of his means. So if you approve of everything he's said and done about CCSI and see it all as an honest search for truth, well, then you're not being hypocritical at all. You'd simply be as ethical an individual as Asensio. . . . And if you'd like the last word on this, it's yours, because I'm fundamentally a sport and a lovably generous person.
