My question was not "slanted to elicit a questionable response" by forcing any reply. It was a legitimate and pointed question, whose form you chose to attack rather than giving a substantive answer.
This leads me to draw a conclusion as to your defensiveness on the topic.
"Would you consider an agenda under which investors lose money buying stocks recommended by paid promoters to be dtetrimental to the IHub community?"
When a question is asked that also answers that same question (rhetorical question) it journalistic purpose is to elicit a questionable response. Any answer other than yes give the Inquisitor carte blanche to accuse the respondent of complicity as you have done here. Likewise, as I treated you with the same respect you gave me by asking "loaded" questions. I could insinuate that conclusions can be drawn on your defensive response as well.
thank you for playing.
David Weed aka the Bird of Prey www.warp-drive.com
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.