It seems to me, that 90% of the people here do not actually understand the tech at all, and are just repeating anything they hear like some kind of talking point catch phrase with no real substantial meaning.
It also seems like the directors do the same, and the argument is "investors don't understand so lets just paraphrase"
The problem is, technology stocks are based on SURPRISE!!! "technology"... this is not something that is open to interpretation, its not something that is abstract or obtuse, it is factual, yes or no, true or false, fact or fiction. anyone saying any different is full of it.
I run afoul of almost all of the posters here apparently, because I repeatedly insist on only perpetuating information that has been released as fact by the company, rather than "i heard this or that" anecdotes.
Apparently me insisting on not making speculative assumptions about retention before they released any information makes me a down ramper -
and now, after they've finally announced documented, specific information about retention, instead of people basing their analysis and speculation on those figures, people are still making up anecdotal, undocumented, unsubstantiated claims about retention.... and suggesting that in person meetings are a place for companies to violate ASX listing rules and that's normal?
I just don't understand why the majority seem to be so obstinately hell bent determined to turn our discussion into a cess pit of bullshit where literally nothing anyone says withstands any scrutiny whatsoever. Its become an echo chamber.
case in point - retention range is days. as stated. not weeks, not months, not years, days. find me any document that states otherwise.
Of course then we have people taking unrelated charts, mis-interpreting the meaning, using that as "evidence" as a drive by, which gets overwhelming support from posters, and then when that evidence was proven to be mis-interpreted and false, everyone just ignores that as if it never happened. Its heads i win, tails you lose, and everyone here is clearly engaged in some form of selective perception.
can we please agree that the goal of these forums is to share information and improve our odds of making successful investment decisions?
can we please agree that misinformation, and unsubstantiated information, is toxic to this goal?
I'd like to propose, that should we have one of these recordings of the briefing released publicly, that we detail those statements, and qualify them such that we can all agree on what the facts are, before we start speculating based on speculation and anecdotes?
does that not sound reasonable?
Or is it unreasonable to expect that people posting on a forum who's rules specifically prohibit unsubstantiated information could abide by that rule?
Expand
