kowenicki said:
its pathetic to give clarification, context and historical measures? ok then. whuch bit of my post is inaccurate or misleading? |
But I'm sure you are calm and happy while grinding that axe, so grind away....?
Inaccurate? None, hence why I didn't correct any of the information provided. Misleading? Well the tangible assets portion clearly was, as was the request to change the title when the OP clearly states it's cash and "other assets," not to mention the fact that the context of the OP seems somewhat clear that the "profitable" refers to the latest quarter. I suspect you knew all of that.
But let's skip the appetizers and get to the meat of it: it's fair to say you have a reputation of being less than objective and non-partisan, and your posts here read accordingly. This is demonstrated by the fact that a not insignificant portion of the posters in this thread have so far been inclined to vocalize their suspicions in one form or another. Rushing to post "corrections" which are all designed to minimize the good news about a company which is, shall we say, not your preferred first-party has the stench of political punditry, especially when you keep at it (not always successfully either: the second post I quoted is largely a non-sequitir).
An objective poster would have looked at this news and intermixed valid corrections and criticisms with observations that there is more than a little bit of good news here, in fact it's largely good news in light of recent trends. I don't believe you done that beyond a cursory "they arent in financial trouble" (sic), followed immediately with "but[!]."
Long story short, you have a reputation, and folks here aren't as stupid as we can often make it appear. That's all.
