137 posts to your 1544 makes me quiet, haha yeah I believe there are real substantial issues to consider here and I don't believe its obvious that JK & ISX will win, maybe they will maybe they won't, I'll wait to see what happens and accept, probably with a little surprise, if JK & ISX are completely successful - and that seems like a balanced approach, especially compared to most posts about ISX on HC anyhow, I see my comments challenging the echo chamber, not downramping or hoping that ASX wins - I couldn't care less who wins, but it's certainly a fascinating case to observe and will have consequences for ASX's enforcement of its rules
I support being inquisitive and testing an argument, that's exactly what you need to do in litigation so what's the harm in people putting a contrary position forward to test/challenge the echo chamber that is ISX posts surely you can see that your statement "I never say that something is true - only that there is a valid question concerning" reads similar to conspiracy theorists - sow doubt without being explicit, use ambiguous language for deniability if my history of comments shows I'm not unbiased then yours shows you squarely behind ISX even if you want to portray yourself as merely raising valid questions - style and tone can say as much as actual words that you responded to the ATO case with a link to a report about bad ATO behaviour which has nothing to do with the ATO v JK case seems like you want to use that unrelated, irrelevant bad behaviour of the ATO to undermine/dismiss its case against JK, that's as logical as saying because the ASX suspended ISX then JK must also be guilty of the ATO offences, and also speaks volumes that you're driving an agenda, not encouraging people to consider a valid question about the strength or legitimacy of the ATO's case that JK didn't declare his ISX salary to the ATO seems irrefutable if thats what the ATO records show but again we'll what to see the decision as maybe there is more to it than what we read, maybe there is a legal exception which means he didn't have to
yes, everyone should look further than the smoke but sometimes there is fire where there is smoke - we will all learn about the facts when a decision is handed down that "another truth" might possibly exist doesnt mean it does or even that there's a good chance that it does - I might possibly win $80m but the reality is that its very very unlikely; people should go looking for facts to support their position, but use facts not an assertion that its all a big conspiracy i'd say take the facts and build a reasonable and defensible position but it seems many here take a position and then try to find the facts to support it - that's the flipside to your exhortation to think about what other facts exist that might indicate another truth
you've made many great comments and posts which have given me things to think about re the substantial issues but this isn't one of them - it is defensive, and don't waste your time with pop psychology analysis of my user name, your reading way too much into it
I was just using the quote to illustrate that anyone can choose a quote, it doesn't strengthen an argument - but you know everyone blindly ignoring contrary views let alone simple facts is putting your head in the sand, and I'd say the ongoing ASX suspension is a storm that's already here for shareholders, not one that is coming - and the number of legal cases JK is in could be viewed as a legal storm for him, but that doesn't mean he won't come through it and see clear skies and sunshine
that's my rambling thoughts - in the spirit of Mark Twain, I didn't have time to write a succinct response so I wrote a rambling one anyhow, that was a good back and forth, keep well, and i look forward to our next exchanges
ISX Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
