Replies to post #4652 on Secure Point Technologies Inc (fka IMSCQ)

[kron7777]

Thanks for saving me time since I also wanted to reply about Imperial argument that explosion detection is matter of life and death and how everyone should not risk using the inferior products.

Looks like some posters here are traders and their opinion on any issue depends on either they hold a position or don't.

[Imperial Whazoo]

Oh really?

Here are the key points of which my point of view consists:

IMSC will sell a lot of onesy-twosy units to purchasers who, in previous years, bought the older "Qualified" technology.

There will be budgets because there will be an industry buzz about the QS-B220's features that are superior.

Getting added to the "Approved" list rather than to the "Qualified" list is not e negative because the TSA works that way. Getting on the "Approved" list puts Implant on the radar screen. It is my opinion that the TSA's warning that procureers of technology on the "Approved" list do so "at their own risk" will not prevent Implant's QS-B220 units from being considered.

Prior years of decision making will not inhibit companies from revsiting Implant's offering.

Existing orders, such as the one in the PR today, are waiting in the wings and they will get executed, chop-chop.

There will not be a wholesale replacing of technology purchased in prior years.

These are my arguments and no amount of sophistry will prevent me from repeatedly defending my point of view against any attempt to re-word what I'm actually saying.

And lets get to the core issue here:

This is your post, to which I'm here replying:

Here is my comment that you objected to starting our back and forth.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but he also indicated they had been losing sales to lack of TSA approval as well, so I don't think they get those sales back until they are ready to upgrade or until they have add on orders....but that's now behind them and now they are a player in the etd market with the best tech and should quickly become the industry leader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now look, you did it again.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I OBJECTED TO.

Its not what I objected to!!!!

Can't you get it?

I agree with the statement you said I objected to but the device of saying I object to something I do not object to is SOPHISTRY, and to use your own phrase: intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual honesty is to say what I ACTUALLY objected to, not to manufacture an objection I don't have.

Gad... its like trying to talk to an Athabascan Native American using the King's English.

Can't you just stop doing things like that? I did not object to what you said I objected to!

Good grief!!!!

I object to you saying that I object to something I do not object to.

I only object to the false satements like that.

And as to this allegation that I need to "be intellectually honest in my (sic) arguments", as far as I'm concerned, I alone have been the inteltually honest party in our exchanges, thank you very much, LOL. Now bear in mind, if you think I'm in need of intellectual honesty, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. Its a free country and who am I to deny you the right to be out of line entirely?

I do suggest however that, it just might help attain this mythic goal of "intellectual honesty" if this practice of re-wording my argument were to disappear from the conversation.

Just a suggestion.

:o)

Have a nice day.

Imperial Whazoo