First you said:
Thousands of people come to SB every day... I am willing to bet that 4 of them knew you had an argument with him. I for one, did not.
Then you said:
"You sure do assume a lot. I will briefly try and cover some that are incorrect.
1. Just because you do not see people involved does not mean that people are not here reading the forums. Check the number of guests viewing the forums at any given time and you will see that over the course of the day it is THOUSANDS of people."
So who started doing the assuming here. Then somehow you got that I said that you did not have thousands of people coming to the forums. So I will show you again what I said and expain it to you.
"I dought that, not the fact that thousands come here, fewer still to the forums, but that few that come to the forums knew."
From that I can stated that fewer came to the forums then to the main site. That comes from years of experience, common sense and what I read here. Hell I have seen and heard comments (on Sirius Buzz no less) that there were people that did not even realize that there were different catagories to the left (investors, general, Canada, equipment, ect., ect.) So it is a fact that less come to the forums then goto the main site. Also just because you see 5 to ten people viewing does not mean they are not repeaters , such as zcurcan, crfceo, myself and many other regulars. I know this because I have seen more then one occurrence where I was on a 2nd or 3rd visit and have seen many others were there again (because of the green light you have). Second you assumed 4 people seen the article I can say that was wrong because there were more then that in the article 5 to be precise. then you say thousands come to the site then chances are that, more then the people on the article came to read it and knew about the debate. Unless you think that title was done wrong to.
You quote me so and then make a statement about what I said which is wrong. How you got what I said is censorship, so lets break this down:
so I will expain, one is offensive and, one that I would not *want* on the front page ether.
The key word here is "want" not demand, or need, there is a difference. That difference also comes from the person saying it. Hence me saying it, I have no authority on this site to change it, You saying it, takes new meaning, you get the point yet.
Next you said:
Like I said from go, I have no problem with the content, I just wanted it labeled as such. If you don't want to contribute then don't
Then why were these not commented on, "July22", "When the smoke clears", "hmmm....I dont know what to make of this", "something I find funny", and "A glimmer of hope". All give no clue any more then mine did about the content, and as a matter of fact mine did. lets not forget was there to show zcurzan,and others on the original debate that there would be no HD added to satellite radio.
Then you said:
You got me... you sure are a good debater. I will say you have been good for a good laugh and the 4 PM's which I received questioning your sanity.
So let me clearifiy you are crazy if you have to be up late at night, because you have a 10 month old that just started teething. Thats what you get for Assuming again, I will help you out you really need to have common sense before you do that kind of assuming. there are many reasons that would have somebody up that late as I have just stated. But you see I would know that about someone, before I did that. Such as I had made a comment to Tyler about a few months ago about having to pull away from a comment that he said the same thing on that posted after his. and I told him I was feeding my baby, and he beat me to the punch.
Then you said:
For the record, all of this was a SUGGESTION and as you will see your stupid title is still in place
This brings me back to what I said before, about what some people say compared to others. When It comes from the "Head Honcho" it is taken differently, then from somebody else.
Finally you said:
By the way... you're grasping at straws and your argument is weak but that is neither here no there. Feel free to set up a poll in the new General Chat (once it is in place) about who "won" this "debate" and I am sure the winner will be clear.
grasping at staws and weak, I dought that. I have systematically torn you comments apart and corrected and shown you to be wrong on them piece by piece. There was little you said that made sense. As you will see I did leave a few things out because I agree. Such as when you told me not to keep posting 3 times but to just edit it, there might have been one or two other things.
Finally what kind of nim-rod are you. Yea that would be a totally unbias survey on a site you have control of and run. Here is an example how dumb you are; A survey on the article, that I was proven right on, which was the one against zcurzan (and the reason for this article) would have shown me to be wrong then. That would not have made that survey correct, though would it. I have found many times that I have debated many people at the same time on the same subject. That if you took a survey at that time I would be wrong according to the survey, that did not change the fact I was proven to be right. Here is another example on Seeking Alpha. It was about, there not being a short sqeeze because of the ARB play (yes, thats right the same thing Tyler has said). Yet I was debating 4 different people and many others that thought I was crazy. Well if a survey was taken then, I would have been wrong, As we now know though, I (and Tyler) were right. Here is a clue for you, popular opinion does not make you or anybody else right. The facts do. In this I have the facts on my side. I dont lose to many debates, something zcurzan should have learned from the last debate, I wiped the floor with him. It is obvious he has not, instead of just coming here and saying: yes john, you where correct thank you for your insight, I now got to go, and wipe the floor with him again.