[edited out]
Ok, I think we're cool now JJG.
I don't think that we are quite "cool" because in one sense, I was thinking that you were being "cool" to post your China/Trump post, but then you had to come back in "attack mode."
Further, your below explanation seems to be an attempt to eek some kind of victory out of a situation in which there does not seem to be any kind of need for a victor. no?
As long as you finally realize that a) speculation is just that, pure BS speculation, and b) that not everyone that disagrees with you or has an opinion that differs from yours is "trolling" the forum.
Why would I agree to those conditions, they are not self-sustaining and non-controversial, and I don't even agree with either of them.
>>>>>a) speculation is just that, pure BS speculation,<<<<<
I don't have a problem with speculation. My participation and interactions on this thread should demonstrate that.
As you should realize, all forms of speculation are not equal... some speculations are better backed up by facts and/or logic than other speculations.
Sometimes there may be a need to back up speculation further especially if you might be engaging with another poster who makes a genuine request for a further explanation about how you arrived at your various conclusions, facts and/or logic. Sometimes, the further explanation may be sufficient by asserting that it is just a feeling or that I looked at the stars or I am relying on numerology, as long as there is a kind of an attempt to interact rather than merely changing the topic and going into
ad hominem attack mode without any kind of justification.
>>>>>b) that not everyone that disagrees with you or has an opinion that differs from yours is "trolling" the forum<<<<
Like I inferred above, posters can agree on all kinds of levels with me (facts, logic, conclusions), and probably I would not label them as a troll unless they have shown repeated conduct of engaging in various kinds of disingenuineness... sure a troll could recover and begin to engage in non-trolling comment, but that would not necessarily mean that the earlier conduct was not appearing to rise to the level of trolling.
By your post history, you seem to believe that everyone here that might have a short term bearish sentiment is a mere bear/troll account that needs calling out, which is just not true.
Probably you are misreading my posts.
As a long time permabull that has outlasted many others on this sub forum, I get prickly whenever someone tries to call me out on some short term bearish sentiment I may have (which I don't have right now) depending on the day, and try to paint me as a troll.
No need to take it personally. I am describing my perception of your behavior, and I am not wedded to permanently labelling anyone, unless their ongoing conduct would continue to justify such a label.
I can guarantee I'm a bigger long term bull than you and many others are.
Who cares? And why should it matter?
It's my opinion that we should have been well north of $1K many years ago, that's how much I think bitcoin is undervalued right now.
Who knows? Maybe we agree on some of these kinds of conclusions, but that does not mean that we necessarily agree on all of the relevant facts or the logic of how to get from point A to point B.
In other words, we should be able to have posts that engage on the topic rather than getting into attempts at oracle status or other kinds of status assertions.
That being said, though, just throwing numbers out there with no data to even remotely try to back it up is nothing more than uninformed cheerleading. Which is fine, just call it for what it is.
Maybe we agree on the essence of this point? Yet, I am not sure. Sometimes, actions speak louder than words.
I think that if we take any particular post in context, then it is more relevant to talk about the contents of that particular post or a series of posts that are within the same spirit of the contents of a particular post rather than getting into various global generalizations that may or may not be relevant discussing the contents of a particular post topic. For example, if in another post from a year ago, I said x, y and z, but in a current post I said a, b and c and not x, y nor z, then it may or may not be relevant that a year ago I said x, y and z; however, it could be relevant.. Whether it is relevant or not depends upon the context, no? But at the same time, it could be necessary that I explain, especially if someone genuinely asks me in such a way that is not merely attacking me, but attempting to get clarification of the then seeming contradiction, which could potentially end up being a mere misunderstanding, no?
Poll
