As usual, the board poster doesn’t specifically address any of the content in my nine-post series or my follow-up posts. Readers should ask themselves why is that? Why the constant deflection? Could it be the comments by Halpern are indefensible?
Instead, there is the tired old “party of five” routine along with the usual sophomoric insults we’ve come to expect. Along with a few additional references to “yesteryear,” even though all the quotes I commented on have been posted in the last few weeks, starting on July 10th. Is ten days now considered to be yesteryear? I know philosophers have hypothesized about time being a flat circle, but ten days in our reality is still ten days on the calendar.
I wonder, does the board poster imagine his posts are effective in the way he thinks they are? Responding just to respond is up to the individual board poster but I think most readers want to debate the facts instead of throwing invectives around. Care to highlight anything you disagree with and debate about it? I’ve given you plenty of evidence to copy and paste in those nine posts, select a topic, and have at it.
As to the “crickets” comment, I’ve already heard from many shareholders, on both IHUB and YAHOO, who have read the posts and had additional questions, which I am addressing. As a matter of fact, I heard from more than your “party of five” after the first post went up. None of them have ever posted on the boards, by the way, they just read the copy. There are many more readers than posters on every form of social media, so the “crickets” description doesn’t apply.
One final point, the comments and threats made by Greg Halpern on his websites should not be condoned by the board poster or anyone else. Nor should they be ignored. Negotiations between adversaries should never be taken public and certainly not in the way Halpern has presented his case. These gutter tactics may be popular in Chicago, but most people look at those who employ them with contempt.
