dig space: I fear I have offended 24601...
by suggesting he defends the cult. I don't know, but from his last message to me, he seems to have lost whatever reasoning capacity he had left.
I post that Go-Kitesurf is a monumental hypocrite (citing the usual copious proof). I mention the sanctimony of Go-Kite in ripping a journalist's ethics and then authoring a not-for-attribution (meaning no byline) article in a forum that most believe he controls in which he touts WAVE systems, yet fails to disclose a material financial interest in said company. This coming from a person who was going to report Ellen Sheng for ethical lapses! I mean, you can't make this stuff up, it is so ridiculously hypocritical, shallow, self-serving, and essentially dishonest.
So what is 24601's response to my remark? He suggests that I am the sanctimonious blowhard! (Which may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.) A typical defense lawyer tactic. I point this out to him and he pretends not to understand. Or, I don't know, maybe he doesn't.
Second example of this defense lawyer mentality? Same tactic. I point out the utter insanity of the CEO going out of his way to contradict another board member's cash flow breakeven scenario (a more sane view, of course), point out that a $5 million per quarter revenue projection must have been based on some assumptions (lunatic though they may be). How does our attorney friend respond to that? The same tactic as before. He points out that my projections have not always been right, apparently in the belief that the CEO (with a CFO to assist in his financial modeling, not to mention being privy to any and all material facts that would go into a cash flow projection) should not be held to any different standard than an anonymous poster.
My only point: 24601 defends the company and the cult. It is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, All Things Gilder, I always say!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
