T.G.W., you ol' dog! You're at it again!
You said. . .
I find it comical as well as sad that you would spend so much time dissecting someones post on a bill. . .
I post on this thread for one of two reasons. (1) To respond to a post to me, or (2) to provide enlightenment or to correct what someone else has posted. My initial posting was to answer TrumpCards' specific question as to whether or not the bill was law. I responded with a post that took me about two minutes to write because it relied solely on my recollection of my high school American Government class. My subsequent posts on the subject were merely responses to posts by Robin and you that called my information into question. Do you find it equally comical that you and Robin spend so much time on the bill?
. . . that may not even have an impact on this stock. . .
Actually, this is a perfect segue into the discussion of the difference between "the stock" and "the company" which someone brought up in a previous post (I'm too lazy to find and cite the post). The bill absolutely did have an impact on the stock. However, I maintain it will have little if any impact on the company (except to the extent the company reacts to the impact on the stock). What is the difference, you ask? The value of a company is the manifestation of its fundamentals (product, industry, management, capital, Yada, Yada, Yada). The value of a company's stock is a manifestation of the perceived value of the company. Stock prices change on a daily basis when there is no underlying change in the fundamentals of the company. Obviously, TrumpCards and others thought the bill MIGHT have an impact on the stock (AND, in fact it did because the stock price temporarily tanked on Friday). Some even thought it would significantly impact the company. I disagree.
. . . when you totally ignore the request made by Mr. Davis for answers to his questions. . .
Once again, you post blatant untruths! (37-0) If you will refer back to my post #5124 to you (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=5317748), you will see that I have not "totally ignored" Bob's request. On the contrary, and I quote from that post, "Anyway, I sent Bob Davis an e-mail stating that I had, for all intents and purposes, answers to each of his questions."
. . .that may indeed effect GLOW.
Could you please explain to me how me answering Bob's questions are going to impact GLOW? I didn't realize I had that much power!
You seem to revel in proving some obscure point which escapes me. . .
If you consider a point which caused a temporary 25% loss in GLOW's market capitalization "obscure", what the heck do you consider relevant???
. . .and probably everyone else.
If it escapes everyone else, why was there so much discussion about it and why did the stock price temporarily tank? And you obviously don't consider it obscure. (38-0) You're already talking about how the government is going to enforce it! Message 5320383
Do you have some deep seated desire to publicly prove that you can SOUND or APPEAR to be educated?
Yes! Yes! YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!
If so you have failed.
Oh darn! You really think I've failed? You know how much I value your opinion, buddy!
Looking up definitions in your spell checker. . .
FYI, TGW, A spell checker. . .checks spelling! It does NOT provide definitions!
. . . and repeating sentences for effect that someone else has written . . .
For some reason, some people get really aggravated at my habit of excerpting posts I am responding to. The reasons for the habit are (not that I have to explain myself). . .
1) To ensure I respond to a post in its entirety
2) So readers know EXACTLY what I am referring to without having go back to the previous post
3) Because I have an incredibly lousy memory. . .I need to have what I am responding to staring me straight in the face.
To those who are bothered by my habit, I apologize. . .however, I have no intentions whatsoever of changing.
. . .is not the mark of an educated man. Quite the opposite!
Are you suggesting I am NOT an educated man? Now TGW, I thought we were friends! That really, really, really hurts! You have hereby been put on double-secret probation from being my friend until further notice.
This is an investment thread and the idea originally was for interested investors to share information that may give them a competitive advantage in the market over those that do no DD. That means that both the negative and positive aspects of the stock should be discussed.
I feel like we're going around in circles! TGW, we've already HAD this discussion. I responded to your request for a discussion about the merits of the stock by posting a point-by-point account of my pros and cons of the stock. To your credit, you responded to it (I actually thought we were on to something!), however, you completely ignored my response back! It seems that when things start heating up in the kitchen, you head for the hills!
You,and people like you ,have made a mockery out of this forum with your focused objective to hype and pump this stock.
Could you do me a favor. Could you provide for the benefit of everyone here a SINGLE example of me "hyping and pumping" this stock?
Never any facts just press releases and hype.
Some might suggest you have reduced this forum to engaging in scare tactics and spreading innuendo. Of course, I know that you, being my good buddy (you're off probation) would never resort to such activity!
Why would I say that? Simple! You never have discussed any of the fundamentals associated with the stock, and not even the most rudimentary information.
Actually, I have attempted repeatedly to engage you in not only discussions of the stock's fundamentals (an important part of the investment decision, however, not the only part) as well as investment theory and how the stock fits a particular portfolio. For some reason, you refuse to continue the discussion. Oh well.
And now you have reduced it to a debate on legislative procedure.
Actually, it is not I who "reduced it to a debate on legislative procedure". It was Robin and yourself!
Red Big whatever, only you understand what your objective is, but it is not to help anyone.
Actually, my objective IS to help someone. . .it's to help myself! At least I'm willing to admit it. However, helping myself (which is selfish) includes helping others. I do have a conscience and I absolutely get enthralled when others are successful. I even wish you success! I do not believe that "winning" or "success" is a zero sum game. A rising tide lifts all ships. There are far more people who are "helped" with a stock's ascent than are "hurt" by it.
I wish all GLOWers well. . .and wish YOU well, also, TGW.
Your All Time Best Bulletin Board Buddy,
GO BIG RED!!! |
