Sure, not that you'll be happy about it anyway.
They are relevant to some of the absurd discussions going on there, and sometimes to comments addressed specifically to Dew. How on earth can one join such a discussion without reference to what was said? The hypesters there have been trumpeting a "slam-dunk" approval, which Dew knows is nonsense; until today, there would be no panel, which meant approval; now that a panel has been announced, that shows that approval is certain; the stock price is stuck where it is only due to "illegal manipulation" (the word "crooks" gets thrown around a lot by the enthusiasts). None of these attitudes lends itself to diffident response.
I myself have several times felt constrained to remind people that there were no reportable fails to deliver on the stock, simply because some of the obsessives there insist on discussing huge, secret naked short positions in the stock--which do not exist. Such garbage should not be left unanswered, and it's hard to answer it with great politeness.
Remember io, calling out someone on a stupid remark or an incorrect observation is not a "personal attack" (nor is it elaborate, and as to "personalized": you prefer generalized attacks?); declaring some annonymous poster on a message board is a "short" or a "paid basher" is. In fact, your post to which I replied was nothing but a personal attack based only on your own opinion. As to answering "Groupthink" to someone who observantly asks how so many people could, contrary to all logic, think Provenge approval is a slam-dunk? That's just a humorous way of phrasing an appropriate response.
The fact is, io, your only basis for for calling Dew's posts personal attacks is that you don't agree with him. How would you like to be taken to task simply for beginning one of your responses to him with "Nonsense."?
That's all I intend to say on this subject, which was off-topic when you brought it up and continues that way. Try to get some of that élan.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
