sharetrader
Results 1 to 10 of 2956

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger View Post
    I've got a lot of time for David Hillary's analysis as he spends not inconsiderable amounts of his own running detailed analysis of the situation, and he's certainly not without a good degree of professional skill.
    I see you like you hypocrisy served heavily sweetened with delusion.

    Roger, you have the mentality of a policeman. However, you cling to his conclusions because they support your position. This is why policemen make terrible lawyers - they think the law is all "procedure" and they do not have the mental agility to argue from first principles. You often find them as property lawyers - where procedure counts and there is nothing new under the sun. Putting this aside ...

    Hillary, has been completely discredited, by me, on this thread. His assessment of the SCF accounts, in particular, I have dealt with suggesting that he does not understand the dynamics of the SCF reorganisation and how this is effecting the balance sheet. His discussion on capital adequacy is seriously flawed - again, no understanding of the restructuring and how it will reshape the business. His view on further asset impairments is simply naive.

    I am sure that Hillary will perform to his usual low standard in his "analysis" of the Statutory Manager's report. (Given that the parts Balance produced are easily dismissed as "evidence").

    The final objection is his basic hypocrisy. He is a self proclaimed defender of natural justice and yet apparently lacks the mental capacity to really understand what this means. Further, his article defending the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard is a pure grotesque. The twistings and turnings of verbiage - to justify that "a" is not "a", it is in fact "b", in the right light and with a strong wind behind you - is something to behold.

    To David Hillary's tortured words - I have just one: "hypocrite".

    To you Roger, this is probably meaningless. You have your prima facie case (with exactly what you use as evidence, I am not sure). Like a policeman motivating by "winning", you will not let it go until charges are laid. David Hillary is a wonderful ally, for you - here is someone prepared to bear false witness in the court of public opinion.

    My objection to all of this is pretty fundamental.

    The King James says it best in Exodus 20:16, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
    Last edited by Enumerate; 19-07-2010 at 12:12 PM.
    Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •