i've given up trying to understand why flat-earthers feels threatened by facts. some of the opinions expressed might have been understandable early in this bankruptcy process. however, as additional facts become available it's curious that some dig in their heels and revert to emotions versus knowledge. if a lengthy discussion is presented with links supporting statements, the criticism is "it's wordy". when a succinct presentation is made the argument is "that's all you got?"
there's a lot of talk about due diligence. but when anyone finds it difficult to get through a half page post, i can not imagine how they are able to tackle an sec filing or a bankruptcy docket counting into the hundreds of pages. so it appears real facts are blown off and the approach is to go with one's gut. if you are that threatened by a presentation backed up with factual links, maybe you should revisit your investment thesis.
if you have facts to counter someone else's position, i would think you would be able to restate those pretty quickly. saying "i'm too busy to figure that out again" suggests to me is was never really figured out in the first place. arguing that eddie wouldn't walk away from his stock is based on emotion, not facts. i'm not the one who set the value of the class b securities. that was done in the asset purchase agreement which was mutually agreed to by and among transform holdco, sears holding corporation, and the sears subsidiaries who are parties to the bankruptcy. argue the ridiculousness of the value with them, that's what they agreed to. killing the messenger doesn't change those facts.
glta because it seems that luck may be all you have if you're not willing to consider the alternatives.
