sanking said:
You are engaging in selective interpretation of what has been said, irrespective of how well you read the messages. You conveniently ignore, for example, the fact that virtually everyone who has commented on this thread, including Michael Smith, has acknoweledged the validity of some of Jay's early questions.
The issue, and the primary reason most of us have been critical of Jay, is that he posted several messages which supported the investment concept. And his choice of language, specifically his use and justification of the word "scheme", clearly conveys negative implications about the arrangment proposed by Michael Smith. And to say that it does not, as Jay now asserts, is to be disingenious in the extreme. Jay cites dictionary definitions frequently and shoud know that one of the common uses of the word "scheme" is to refer to a secret or devious plan or arrangement.
Finally, you are entitled to your opinion that the past history is not relevant to the discussion. But that positioni either ignores the facts of the history, or suggests a view of the world that I find for one find rather naive.
Sandy
NO Sandy,
I read the whole thread and understand both points of view. I ignored nothing. What prompted me to post to this thread was the name calling and other personal attacks. I am fairly new to APUG. I have not been exposed to anybody's prior bad behavior and I see no reason why I should be now. Each individual post should stand on its own merit. A new post ought not be dragging along baggage from earlier flame wars.
If we did that then I believe nobody who posts here would have anything legitimate to say about anything. Every discussion would devolve into something like "Oh yeah, you
would have been right about
'X' now but last year you said
'Y' so now you'll be perpetually full of beans."
How many people have engaged in flame wars on any site? Is it fair to
you if Jay or somebody else brings
your flame baggage to everyone's attention whenever
you post?
If you've been nasty to somebody as we all have at one time or other, I'd rather not hear about it. You may call it naive, I call it 'fair'.
We all agree that Jay made a couple of valid points. There is nothing wrong with my re-statement of that fact. I made no mention of the controversy surrounding the "Investment" argument as Jay was not the proponent of that particual argument. It doesn't matter anyhow.
The point of my post was basically "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" That's pretty much it.
I'll just sit back and try to avoid picking up any stones. I certainly don't have the right to throw them either.
