03-20-2019, 10:30 PM
Classic short tactics, once you refute one argument, they immediately come up with another. First they complain that contracts don't have names of customers announced and therefore they must be fake. This is nonsense of course (see this thread above), but anyway.
Now that we have a name (Citrix, this morning) and a significant one at that they complain there are no $$ value published. See the immediate shift.
They would be crazy to publish the dollar value, for competitive reasons.
So this argument can be easily refused either, and they will come up with another one, just desperate that anything will stick.
And once you have refuted all their arguments they simply start anew, hoping the sheer mass of nonsense will stick to the company's reputation as something controversial and frighten off a few investors who can't see through this.
Don't fall for this, I've seen this film more than once.
Now that we have a name (Citrix, this morning) and a significant one at that they complain there are no $$ value published. See the immediate shift.
They would be crazy to publish the dollar value, for competitive reasons.
So this argument can be easily refused either, and they will come up with another one, just desperate that anything will stick.
And once you have refuted all their arguments they simply start anew, hoping the sheer mass of nonsense will stick to the company's reputation as something controversial and frighten off a few investors who can't see through this.
Don't fall for this, I've seen this film more than once.