I admire your conviction KThomp. You are correct in that I am not unbiased. I'm only calling you out on the BS hypocritical posturing because that's what you do to others.
"It's funny that you bring up Treasury fearing lawsuits, because it's writing off the seniors that Treasury thought was illegal a few years ago."
Unsubstantiated claim based on hearsay. At no point did Treasury state they thought anything was illegal. Treasury is an entity, not a person. I've said this multiple times and I don't see you producing any evidence to the contrary.
"If you were even remotely capable of logically arguing against what I say then you would do so, rather than resorting to ad hominems and dodging the relevant questions"
I am arguing against what you say. You just refuse to acknowledge it. This leads to me calling you a hypocrite. Cause -> Effect.
"What I want are reasonable and detailed arguments as to why the commons could possibly go beyond $10 or so in the future even if FnF are recapped and released. I have yet to see one."
What you want? Am I supposed to care? We have zero obligation to jump through hoops for you. If you don't like the arguments or basis for opinions posted, you can disagree in a reply, or poop emoji them, or sit there and shake your head quietly. I don't see anyone else calling people out for not providing detailed calculations or filing a lawsuit to back their position. That's utter nonsense.
"And you are incapable of answering basic questions about future lawsuits, even when prompted."
Again, I've answered your questions multiple times. The answers are vague and not to your liking because I'm not Nostradamus. So be it. Refer back to zero obligation statement above.
"At least when I call others hypocrites it's actually correct."
You very well may be correct. But you are also the pot calling the kettle black.
