Blue - You're at it again -- using personal attacks to silence people you disagree with. I predicted you'd try this and you've sadly proven my prediction correct. I'm calling you out to remind the board that this is who you are and what you do, and because the only way to stop a bully is to expose them.
You called Martinitony's post "moronic" because his price target of $75 to $80 didn't reflect what you call "SODA's true P/E" (BTW, most people on this board believe the mean P/E of this high-growth company will inevitably rise). You initially fault Martinitony for not reading the last two Oppenheimer reports, and then get unhinged, repeatedly accusing him of not reading the last report like it was a crime ("You didn't even read the Oppenheimer report did you? Answer that question did you??").
You also accuse Martinitony of "calling people morons and attacking those who reflect on the stocks historical movement" which he did not do. He said that after SODA's PPS returns to the $75-80 range, "another moron analyst" (not all of them) would say the stock is oversold and send it down again. I'm comfortable with Martinitony calling some non-specific analyst that's manipulating the stock a moron. We've seen you use this tactic (taking umbrage on behalf of others) before in your attacks on Atty. Your other attacks on Martinitony are just too petty to address.
Don't bother referring to your saying "I'm gonna help you out here," "I'm going to offer you some constructive criticism," etc. Everyone can see them as a ham-handed attempts to disguise your attacks, just as you disguised your attacks on Atty in a faux invitation.
I think all your reasons for attacking Martinitony are pretextual, I think your sole purpose is to silence him, and I think that's wrong. In the last week, I have twice urged you to stop the personal attacks and keep the focus on SODA and making money. Blue, I am asking for the third time, can you agree to do that? - Jim
I'm pretty comfortable with my posting on his topic. He started slandering (which you are supporting by the way) analysts and calling them morons so I only threw it back at him by acknowledging his lack of researched insight. If you insist on putting up an opinionated post and pass it off as factual expect your own misunderstandings to be highlighted on the board. I think newbies now know that martintony has no knowledge or insight to offer regarding what the analysts are discussing or the real reasons why they are changing ratings and price targets. He could have stayed on point and answered the question which everyone already knew the answer to anyway, but nope, kept with the usual bumbling posts. He chose to be ignorant of the facts and that was his choice. All I did was recognize the facts.
Blue - First, slander is speaking false and defamatory words about a person; libel is writing them. Second, you cannot libel a profession; libel is an action that can only be brought by a specific person a group of specific persons. I mention these facts to show that you are opining on a subject you don't know anything about (which you hypocritically, and incorrectly, accused Martinitony of).
Martinitony was not attacking a specific analyst or all analysts covering SODA. Anyone giving his posts a fair reading (and by that I mean anyone not trying to make themselves look good by making someone else look bad) will see that he was describing how SODA's PPS has been manipulated. Calling a non-specific analyst a moron is the same as calling a non-specific short/MM a troll/manipulator; they are simply innocuous adjectives that don't hurt a specific person.
Martinitony's postings don't lack research or insight, they just don't reflect the same importance that you put on the reversion of SODA's P/E to the mean. You think you have proved the "real reasons why [SODA analysts] are changing their ratings and price targets" (even though most of them haven't changed), but what you have actually demonstrated, again, is that you have a very low self-esteem and that you experience perceived slights (ie, Martinitony not thinking like you) as an existential threat. Your low self-esteem fuels an insecurity that drives an irrational attempt control this board, the people on it, and the exchange of their ideas. You have also demonstrated again that you will use lies, half-truths, and character assassination to silence other voices.
What the board sees is your compulsive need to attack and hurt people. We also see the desperate nature of your need to attack, your inability to restrain yourself from attacking, and the contradictory and illogical lengths you'll go to rationalize your attacks. We all know what you are and what you do by your repeated attacks, and we wont forget.