The Jailhouse

[Bird of Prey]

Can't say I'm surprised.



A. The header reeks of "believe me, the others are all liars". it comes across as trying to convince someone of something right from the start, similar to a newspaper headline or advertising slogan. No place for it in a DD report. Regardless of what side the report is slanted towards.

B. I stand by my statement regarding presenting "some" information. If you wish to present a negative only side of the story then say so. Same for a positive slanted report.

1. If the information is so out of date that easy access to the documentation/verification cannot be found...is it really all that relevant? Cannot something more current and verifiable be found to support one's position?

1a. As stated the search performed was most cursory (meaning little time was spent searching). The purpose of the commentary was not to refute any claims made by the author of the original "report", but to educate anyone wanting to prepare such reports in a proper fashion.

2. Again, the reader is still directed to the author's site. this looks more like an article designed to get people to visit the authors site than to inform anyone of anything. Also please refer to comment #1 above. Further, including the relevant portion of the dockets in this section would have been appropriate. Better would have been a third party link.

3. The purpose of the article was to point out the errors in presentation not refuting the commentary.

4. If it was so simple why didn't you do your readers a favor and provide the necessary links to support the statement made in this section? If this were the only missing link, it could probably be overlooked. In light of the overall lack of links to third party verification it bears mentioning. It is not unrealistic to expect your reader to do some research on his or her own. It is unrealistic to expect them to do it all.

5. See #4 & #3.

6. See #4 & #3.

7. I stand by my original statement concerning an attempt to direct the reader to the authors desired conclusion.

8. See #7.

9. Response non sequitur. See #4 & #3 for explanation of original commentary.

10. See #1.

11. I stand by my original statement concerning the extraneous commentary. The paragraph in question says what it says. Perhaps if the author had be focused on simply presenting information instead of trying to steer the reader to a particular conclusion this paragraph might have sounded better.

12. Well, I just reread Item 8 and found no reference to the information presented in this item. No editing of the original document was performed and would have been unnecessary since the purpose was not to refute the author's thesis but to show errors in the presentation. I stand by my original commentary concerning this item with the additional note that including it in Item #8 would have strengthened that section.

13. See #1.

14. See #1, #2, & #3.

15. See #3 & #4.

16. See #1, #2, #3 & #4.

16a. Response non sequitur. See #3.

I stand by my original conclusion.

The purpose of the article is to show errors in presentation not refute the assertions made by the author. The original document reads very much like the UCE we all get promoting this or that stock. It's almost as if the author has used that as a template in creating the original document. The only difference is it's boo-hiss instead of rah-rah.
My point here is that if the report reads like you should take an action, it isn't a report, it's a sales pitch. Even when used to "bash" it reads like the reader is expected to sell if they own the stock and further to shout to the rooftops that no one should own this stock for any reason. Just like the "tout" message that everyone should own this stock and shout to the rooftops to ensure that everyone should own this stock. Both approaches are wrong.




The Bird of Prey


P.S. I can't believe I got that Grub!