So I take it that you agree that you are not smart enough to discuss the points of my argument?
For all of your bitching and complaining the only thing you can come up with against me is to try and discredit me by claiming I am James? Is this board so devoid of intellectual thought that you would rather resort to accusations and name-calling then debate the assertions you put forward? Unless you can back up your arguments, then you are no better than the company.
I am NOT James and you have provided no evidence that I am other than you disagree with my opinion. BUT as described even if I WERE James then my argument would have no less merit. So I assert again than if you sell your shares when you break even you would be selling those shares to a BUYER.. that buyer would by your own admission be buying into a scam that will be diluted. So by selling your shares you are just as much of a scam artist as James. It is the same as having a car that you know wont make it down the street after you sell it yet you sell it to someone else in order to get out of owning it yourself.
If you do not have the brains to debate this logical debate with me then everyone else should see you for who you are. Which is you are full of hot air and a hypocrite.
Description of Fallacies
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
