Hey Annie.I didn't say I distrust "ASX". But understand some...

Hey Annie.

I didn't say I distrust "ASX". But understand some here with a negative point of view think implicit is equal to explicit, but they are not the same thing. For instance, implicit guilt as alleged by ASIC is not the same as explicit guilt - the latter requires several more steps before it can be legally concluded guilt exists.

We are at step #1, which is important to anchor too. We shouldn't anchor to step #4 because we have to move through steps #2 and #3. That only makes sense and conforms to a logical way forward.

That said, I am really talking about overarching principles that guide our thinking about what is and what is not. But, if what is has not been legally established, then all we have is what is not.

So despite the hundreds upon hundreds of post offering an opinion about what is, we can only anchor to the fact that nothing has been established including guilt or not guilt, which is my point about everything that is said being moot.

That's a good thing annie. I like your thinking, but its only one half of the whole and we are yet to understand the whole.

Happy NY!