In Daily Distortions no.15, we admit that we have overestimated the importance of the worst offender in this series, there came some wisdom from another board where they have more experience with him. On the other hand, there is still that UCLA professor..Our impetus comes from two elements:
- The enormous level of distortions that people write about InterOil (we can only deal with a fraction of it, see our Daily Distortions series)
- The often extreme disingenuousness of the bashers
First, we saw it as our duty to show what is wrong with those distortions, why these are distortions, often in meticulous fashion. We happen to think that most of the truth is out there and we tried to be of some assistance in the discovery process.
Secondly, we use arguments, it’s the only way we know. Perhaps in a time when image seems to dominate much rational discours, that might be a tad old-fashioned, and we have to admit that we were not quite prepared for the level of foul play out there.
We wrote a 10 page detailed exposé on some of the weird theories and rantings of a certain Bostonkenmore produced with on a daily basis (Daily Distortions 1-10). We offered him a page for a rebuttal, he declined. We even warned other boards about this liar. We shouldn’t have bothered with all this. This is one of the replies from another board (MDC):
- Boston is some sort of posting sociopath. He cannot stick to a subject or point, and when challenged with facts or logic, he’ll simply change the subject, distort, or employ some other technique. When he can’t “win” on facts or logic, he will start with personal attacks or accuse you of attacking him. A year or so ago, I spent a lot of time trying to work with him, and tried doing a very polite debate back and forth with him. He would not stick to the point and finally broke down into personal attack mode with lots of distortions. Davenport has posted Boston’s “investments” and they’re doing horribly. The list is the one offered up by Boston, and Davenport has merely tracked it.
- By any measure he is a failure at “investing” though he loves to drop names and offer up useless bromides penned by others (e.g. in the short term the market is a voting machine, in the long term its a weighing machine.)
- I checked out your site, and you’ve done a very good job of analyzing Boston’s MO.
- Davenport and I and a few others have been short the Homebuilders for several years and have posted during that time about many topics. We had one other poster who’s gone now who we thought was the most arrogant imaginable, but he eventually gave up when his long positions got crushed.
- I must say Boston has him trumped. I don’t even think Boston really trades (or invests much) and he seems to go to boards where he has no “dog in the hunt” and lectures everyone and argues for argument’s sake. And when — assuming he is long — he is down horribly on a stock, he will defend his position with useless stock market bromides and claim he’s ahead since he frequently does what other famous investors do and loses 50% or more in the process of making hundreds of percent.
- IOW, he has a terminal case of “depends what the meaning of “is” is” syndrome with special Brownie points for arrogance. Good luck with this fool! LOL [eyefo]
This sounded all to familliar. This character clearly hasn’t warranted all this attention and it’s not unlikely he thrives on it. One other reaction didn’t mince any words and called us sad for bothering with him. We have to agree.
So we might have taken him way to seriously, but we’re certainly not the only one. A certain Eric Sussman UCLA professor who also features prominently in the Daily Distortions series, not only takes him very seriously, he also thinks he’s a guiding light, even when the lattter is clearly wrong.
We shown that here, and this has been far from the first time. Boston just keeps on repeating it anyway and instead of going into any argument, just calls ours lies, and us liars. This is how he “argues”, but it has the professors blessing… It’s curious. We prefer arguments, but perhaps we’re old-fashoned to think that people teaching in universities would as well.
More on Sussman later though. He came with ‘exam questions’ which he himself could not answer, and he still failed to address any of the issues we raised against him.