'admin' pid='19074' datel Wrote:Art, when people place a (total of) $1B bet against the company in which you are a shareholder you might either assume they're all crooks or idiots (and there is certainly no shortage of that on the IOC short side), or you might want to try and figure out what's motivating them, what are their arguments, reasons and assumptions, and probe them in a meaningful discussion. I simply prefer the latter and I would have preferred for such interaction to have taken place here at SHU. The discussion I was referring to at the end of my SA article actually shows it is possible to have such a discussion, and I would have liked others to have joined in and the discussion being less 'polluted' by some of the undesirables.
I certainly agree a meaningful discussion is best to understand the opinions of others, and certainly appreciated greatly the insights given by Indoreservoir. His review of the technical viability of IOC's resource claims and his cautions with respect to the politics of PNG were comments well taken that likely would not have been revealed in the absense of a debate. On the other hand, the short arguements provided by Bonk et al were tiresome to read for the upteenth time.
I appreciate your efforts, continuing to try to coax something new from that group. In fact I'm quite happy you aren't "rewarded" with something better than the old refrain of IOC management being liars and con men or 'how dare you make such an ad hominem attack". If that great secret short arguement is finally revealed I hope to be among the first to read it :-)
Thanks once again for this terrific forum (as well as your continuing contributions at SA).