Frank - Thankfully, I can not see the content of the posts with who you have been debating with recently. Confirmation bias, it seems, has a firm immovable grip on some posters.
Without even reading the posts - there are two approaches (or is that reproach?) to rebutting critical posts that seem to be employed by one or two posters.
1. Imply the poster has some secret motivation for posting (I have been questioned about whether I worked for a competitor) Seriously, how much of a competitor would you have to be to achieve 54k in revenue and or,
2. An impassioned plea centered on personal issues - while they may be true and we can all have some empathy - I do find their place in the debate wholly inappropriate and irrelevant to the substantive issues.
Either way, at times, it stultifies rational discussion. In any event, the motivation for posting and or the identity of the poster hardly matters - what ought to matter is a fair and balanced examination of the detail of the content of posts. Even if a company rep were to post one sided posts, contrarian posters have the opportunity to rebut their posts with the facts and references to company reports. The same is true for pro posters.
I think it is tragic that some posters have watched the value of their investment plummet (~90% in many cases) and they only seem to focus on critiquing those who are highlighting and or questioning facts that are noted in publicly available reports.
Acquisitions - perhaps, a well located IGA - they could sell some MM products in the health foods isle and double revenue ... perhaps!
