Whoa, dude. What a case of a kettle calling the pot black. You've just said that: you are befuddled and sickened by my post, everything I write is wrong, my post is bizarre, my opinions are tinfoil hat and too silly to be true, I have an utter misunderstanding of the stock market, I am confused about basic accounting concepts, and finally, how dare I express my opinion.
Add to that how you open your posts. I started my response to you with, I think you are making some very valid arguments however I disagree with the principle of your position. You started your 2 responses to me with, There's all kinds of things wrong with what you said, and Your post reads like it belongs on Seeking Alpha, with its mixture of bizarre rhetoric and utter misunderstanding of the stock market.
Do you see the difference? I acknowledged, even complimented, your arguments, and expressed a personal difference of opinion. You on the other hand, started both responses with a categorical judgement that I am ignorant, wrong about everything, and crazy to boot.
And you think I have e-rage? For real?
Ok, on to more reasonable conversation.
First, I did not mean "recession" when I said "devaluation". Why would you take a word I actually used and say that I meant a different word? What I wrote was, I am not the biggest authority on the stock market but is there not a clear consensus that the current devaluation was caused by.... Which part of "stock market" was "not obvious"?
Second, of course I did not compare not getting free money to rape. Again, you've completely twisted my words (especially since I apologized for the dramatic comparison ahead of time). My point was, blaming investors who become victims of accounting fraud is similar to blaming rape victims. In both cases, the focus is shifted from the crime onto the carelessness of the victim and I think that that's wrong.
The thing is, I'm not really interested in a blow-by-blow pseudo-discussion with someone who's convinced himself of some strange alternate view of events and refuses to acknowledge any challenge to this world view. I tried to cut things short and attack the sweeping, fundamental fallacy, but you insist on sticking to surface disagreements, perhaps as a way of shielding yourself.
"Well," you say, "you make a good point, but you see my view of what constitutes 'widespread accounting fraud' is different from the standard view, but my uninformed view is right and everyone else's is wrong, so you're wrong, too. Also, I'm being civil." I'm not really interested in talking to someone who thinks like that, so I'm done.
Add to that how you open your posts. I started my response to you with, I think you are making some very valid arguments however I disagree with the principle of your position. You started your 2 responses to me with, There's all kinds of things wrong with what you said, and Your post reads like it belongs on Seeking Alpha, with its mixture of bizarre rhetoric and utter misunderstanding of the stock market.
Do you see the difference? I acknowledged, even complimented, your arguments, and expressed a personal difference of opinion. You on the other hand, started both responses with a categorical judgement that I am ignorant, wrong about everything, and crazy to boot.
And you think I have e-rage? For real?
Ok, on to more reasonable conversation.
First, I did not mean "recession" when I said "devaluation". Why would you take a word I actually used and say that I meant a different word? What I wrote was, I am not the biggest authority on the stock market but is there not a clear consensus that the current devaluation was caused by.... Which part of "stock market" was "not obvious"?
Second, of course I did not compare not getting free money to rape. Again, you've completely twisted my words (especially since I apologized for the dramatic comparison ahead of time). My point was, blaming investors who become victims of accounting fraud is similar to blaming rape victims. In both cases, the focus is shifted from the crime onto the carelessness of the victim and I think that that's wrong.