Anybody else notice the pattern that has emerged recently with a number of argumentative non-holders begging to be put on ignore if we disagree with them.
Why is it that they are so keen that we put them on ignore rather than having shareholders respond to their statements with reasonable arguments which contradict what they came here to tell us ? If they didn't come hear to engage in a discussion then why are they here ? Why would they want the people who engage them to not do so ?
If key contributors acceed to the requests of these people to be put on ignore then what they say goes largely unopposed and unvalidated. It seems that daring somebody to put you on ignore is just a way of saying "I want to state my opinions and I don't want knowledgable people to validate them".
hang on lol...$2 dividends aren't sustainable, page-17
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 56 more messages in this thread...
This thread is closed.
You may not reply to this discussion at this time.
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)