3 ms·
Ad hominem much? We can argue about his conclusions and methods, but to say that he's some armchair analyst to me implies that his track-record is poor and that
by dailyrorschach 15y ago
Ad hominem much? We can argue about his conclusions and methods, but to say that he's some armchair analyst to me implies that his track-record is poor and that he should not be considered trustworthy on analyzing Apple's financials.
That's simply not the case at all: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/19/apples-blow-out-quarter-the-bloggers-called-it-the-street-blew-it-2/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/19/apples-blow-out-quart...
- recoiledsnake 15y agoPredicting numbers is one thing(luck can play a very big role) and deep analysis without being clouded by one's biases is another. Asymco seems to fail in this regard in most of the posts(including this one) which come through as abject fanboyism not tempered by reality. How is it ad hominem? The poster clearly described why he thought so later on in the post. You can't take a line of someone's post to call ad hominem on it. Strawman?
- dailyrorschach 15y agoI still think beginning your argument in that way is unhelpful to the discussion. He said nothing of value by calling him a navel-gazing armchair analyst. The comment would have been more valuable simply taking issue with the one line he quoted and then discussed. But now, I'm starting to be guilty of the same, so I'm going to stop. Edit: That being said, certainly open to evidence that proves your points w/r/t his ability, and a later poster in the thread did just that.