First off, thanks for the feedback. But to be clear, I am NOT trying to pigeonhole edva whatsoever. edva and mikehd25 both provided tremendous value during the course of the trial as they served as our eyes and ears in a venue where we investors were otherwise blind. As sideline reporters, you couldn't find two better ones.
The underlying theme of my post is similar to one I posted on the free forum site, where it really had nothing specific to do with edva really, but more of a general reminder to board members to not let their guards down when it comes to reading anything from anonymous internet handles on MB's. Uber-bulls are just as dangerous to us as shorts/bashers, and everyone here is in all honesty a total stranger.
If anything, at the time of my post, the MSFT suit had coincidentally just been announced and edva came out with his most recent "back of the napkin" post. As such, it was simply convenient to use edva as an example since the timing was just right. I made it clear that edva was not being singled out or being discredited in any way whatsoever. Rather, the point was simply that people should recognize that as he shifts from providing reports of actual events to providing opinions and prognostications, that people need to remember to recognize the difference between fact and opinion and to protect their hard-earned money by vetting opinions and independently corroborating information with other sources, etc, etc, etc.
Hope that helps clear things up a bit?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
