Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

Admin
  • Posts

    8,898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Sandy Larsen

  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,205 profile views

Sandy Larsen's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Dedicated

Recent Badges

  1. I thought something seemed amiss when I wrote that. I was in a rush.
  2. I never said the report should not be questioned. And I never said that other people should agree with my opinion*. I don't know what your problem is. But I do know it's an attitude that we would be better off without. (*An opinion based on sound reasoning, BTW. So you don't make a big deal about it again.)
  3. Francois, I have a question for you. Does it bother you at all that the HSCA moved the entrance wound that Humes saw near the external occipital protuberance up by 4 inches, to the cowlick area of the head? Don't you think that was an astonishing thing to do? Most CTers know the reason the HSCA did that. Do you?
  4. Francois, That claim in and of itself doesn't matter much to me because it is just the memory of one witness and has no corroboration. I happen to believe that Oswald told the truth in his interrogation about buying a coke on the second floor, then taking it down and drinking it with his lunch. All before the shooting, of course. So if Oswald got change from Geraldine Reid for the coke, that would have been around 12:15 PM.
  5. It is several pages back and I don't have the time or patience to search for it. But I will reconstruct it the best I can if you like.
  6. I DID use sound reasoning. Here's my post that you criticized: I had given my reasoning earlier in the thread. Apparently you missed it. Now, if you had asked me to repeat my reasoning rather than responding with your smart-ass reply, I would have been happy to give it to you.
  7. Oh goodie... another data dump. Noted. I guess the rest of us will have to use our considered reasoning and judgement to discern which parts of it are relevant and which parts aren't. Of course, in doing so we risk the condemnation of Matt Cloud, who is averse to the concept of an individual forum member BELIEVING something, even if the belief is based on sound reasoning.
  8. Keven, I think you just outed yourself. Anybody who believes the 1/6 hearings were a farce -- which is what your post suggests -- has either got to be a Trump supporter or is a believer in wacko anti-Trump conspiracies. I watched the 1/6 hearings and they were completely fair. Most, if not all, the witnesses were Republicans. The findings match perfectly with all the news I heard regarding the 1/6 crimes committed by Trump... some of which he himself admitted to. Russiagate was a difficult thing to follow, but not so the 1/6 crimes. It is obvious that Trump is guilty of the charges against him.
  9. With a company that awful, one might be able to make some money going long on a short squeeze. Explanation for non-stock-traders: Normally you make money by buying it at a low price and selling at a higher price. (If you're lucky and the price goes up.) Short selling is when you do it backwards... to make money, first you sell the stock at a high price and later you buy it back at a lower price. (Again, if you're lucky and the price drops.) How do you sell a stock you don't own? You need to borrow from another trader. After you sell it, you MUST buy it back at some point so that you can give the stock back to the trader you borrowed it from. (You can lose your shirt short selling because stock prices can continue to rise for a long time, and you might have to buy it back when the price has gone up, say, 10 fold. Or 100 fold.) If there's anybody still with me, I'll tell you what a short squeeze is: Suppose you shorted Trump's stock. After some time Trump decides to sell his shares, at which time the price drops because demand for the stock is low. A lot of traders have shorted the stock and now need to buy it back. With all these traders buying the stock back at the same time, demand is suddenly HIGH and the price skyrockets. Here's an example of a short squeeze: Now, if instead of shorting the stock you decide to go long, that just means you buy and sell the normal way. You buy the stock well before Trump dumps his shares, when the price is "normal." Then you wait for the short squeeze and you sell at the high price. In all honesty, I would never short a stock that is owned by a small number of people. You can be forced to buy the stock back at any time by the trader you borrowed the stock from. Going long is a better choice for this Trump stock IMO. Unless you miss the squeeze... in which case you're hosed.
  10. It appears to me that Bill Simpich made an error in his description of the two cables. Anybody, correct me if I am wrong. I make the correction here:
  11. Oh good, we're cool then. After reading your reply I could see how my terse sentences could be taken as my being angry. But no. I was just repeating what I'd said before (to Roger) to explain why I wasn't reading all his links.
  12. I apologize for using the term "data dump." I should have said that I don't have the time or energy level to read and respond to large posts. My comment wasn't meant as a criticism toward you. I meant it to be a statement of facts about my interest level. I'm sorry it came across as it did.
  13. You, in contrast, question everything about the Tippit call report. Given that it is all questionable, you'll never be able to determine anything. Good luck with that M.O.
  14. @Keven Hofeling, I don't have the time or energy level to read and respond to data dumps. I don't intend on becoming an expert on Russiagate. I defended the use of Wikipedia earlier, to Roger I guess. I respond here to a few things that "pop out."
×
×
  • Create New...