Hi guys,
I understand
@uiux defending his concrete factual position and
@BaconLover getting upset about his work on the iceberg being discredited as it’s only human to take criticism personal, even when it wasn’t meant to be aimed directly at you BL.
I get both points of view, you are both right from your given perspectives.
I’m sure you are all aware in law there are different burdens of proof:
beyond a reasonable doubt; for criminal law (which is what Uiux is advocating);
And on the balance of probabilities; for civil law (which is what a lot of the dot joining is about).
I thought one of the purposes of the forum is to discuss companies which start off as questionable on the balance of probabilities to try and find enough for them to move to either below or above the waterline, e.g. NVIDIA via Valeo/MB, commenting on the links until we have definitive proof to put them on the iceberg.
Some we will definitively know via an announcement; others we may never hear of due to contractual agreements, NDA’s commercial in confidence etc. That’s something we have to live with if we want to invest in a tech company. No point whinging about it! It’s why our CEO advised to watch the financials: and what a confident statement to make!
I have huge confidence in where we are headed as I have
done my own research and comfortable with my confidence levels of the knowns and unknowns. No one is going to spoon feed you every bit of information to base your investment decision on, you have to research and rationalise the information in front of you. Hence the saying Do Your Own Research!
Another purpose for this forum is for us to support each other in our common goal in our investment aims. There is enough mis-information out there that it is helpful if we can convey the accuracy of what we are saying e.g. what is the reliability scale. Is it speculative or factual?
With the speculative dot joining sometimes enough corroborated circumstantial evidence can be gathered to still obtain a conviction based on beyond reasonable doubt which is the highest threshold. I am thinking this might be how some of the names below the iceberg waterline have moved to above the waterline. In the end it‘s up to each individual to decide on their level of comfort on what they will accept or not!
I would never risk my hard earned money based solely on posts on this forum without finding corroboration or a good understanding on the context or landscape of the post I’m reading.
An equally important part of this forum is for us to be kind to each other! I understand Uiux you used some of the words you did because they have good shock value and you are trying to convey a message and cut through to a point (I appreciate your direct approach). Something to consider though is that the same words were also hurtful to BL. Both of you are valued contributors.
This is an anonymous forum but many like Uiux and BL have been on here and the other place for many years. It can become quite familiar and I never thought I would be saying this but it can feel like the regulars are distant friends. We are human and build connections; and words can hurt. It’s not my primary reason for being on the forum but it is nice to open up a thread and read something which has been thoughtful, insightful, funny etc and even better if it contains useful information relative to investing in Brainchip.
I am confident we are all going to get wealthy together: some more than others but, let’s make it a nice journey for everyone.
The iceberg was a great pictorial reference and thanks to all who contributed. Maybe if we re-visit some of the more questionable companies for accuracy and in doing so might find some more relevant and up to date information.
Regardless there is enough information out there for me to sleep easy with my investment in Brainchip!
Cheers all.
