...
Originally Posted by Precious_b
So let's sum up this whole idea. An opinion piece, regardless of their typical POV or leanings, wrote an article which speculated that someone might, inadvertently own 2 whole shares, worth about $48 each, of a security by way of their ownership shares in a mutual fund and you draw the conclusion that they are intentionally trying to profit off of a probable cure with a generic drug which that company happens to also make, along with several other companies around the world. Which would tell me that nobody ever compared you to William F Buckley or Sherlock Holmes
I have the greatest respect for Mr Buckley and Firing Line. That was a great show, thought the way Bill kinda droned when he spoke was quirky. He was a smart dude. You? Not so much. Curiously enough, you might be able to get closer if they ever find a cure for TDS that isn't fatal..
I want you to show me exactly where I said the National Review was peer reviewed. I know you can't. Because that is a fact as I have a standard opinion that the phase peer review and circle jerk are synonymous, with the difference being you as the hub in the latter.