Umm... no it isn't? My analysis was fairly light, but did not...

Umm... no it isn't? My analysis was fairly light, but did not reduce it beyond reason and logic, as is required to be considered reductio ad absurdum. I actually maintained a fairly level position, and concluded that it was neutral. Reductio ad absurdum is usually used to dismiss an alternative position, not accept it.

At the end of the day, they made a small investment in a fairly small company. It's immaterial to ISX's market cap. That's what's called "factual".

"JK's holy war with the ASX" - yeah, I actually think I got that one about right. His company got investigated by the orders-of-magnitude-larger market operator, so he is using our money to wage war against them in federal court. He's now bought a stake in a small competitor (again using our money) to try to make them look worse if they take action against him. I left this out of my analysis, because it's more "picking on JK" than "actual analysis", but he made it perfectly clear in his press release that he wants to use this to try to take down the ASX. He has very obviously opened up a second front against the ASX, in response to the ASX doing their job. Multiple battlefields against the same enemy can be considered a war. I stand my by earlier statement.