Quote from Wayne Gibbous:
I assume you mean this thread so I moved my reply here. I do try to be logical most of the time (when I'm not agitating or trying to be funny). Heck I thought this was one of my more logical threads...
Of course I know only the bare surface details of what has been happening to VN. I'm not an investor with him nor in his circle. "Opinionated," certainly, but then this is a trading message board. Aren't we all opinionated here to a large degree?
Several of Vic's defenders have made statements like "we don't know what we are talking about..." and "we are just trying to drag Vic down", etc. So what, exactly, is wrong about what has been stated?
Did VN not suffer several blowups? Did he really make ALL of his investors whole? I'm sure quite a few did make lots of money, despite the blowouts. But what if you had invested late?
Is Vic not on the state tax delinquent website? If this is wrong, shouldn't he tell them to take it down right now?
Did VN not cheat on his wife and have a child with LK? Is this any of my business? Hell no! But it is in the public domain and when someone posts something like an unequivocal "Victor is a great and honorable man...," excuse me if I disagree. I have never cheated on my wife. Why would this be brought up? It's all about character...
If any of us have stated anything that is not true, please inform us. I know we would all be glad to have the truth posted. We are still asking the question: Is VN a good fund manager that you would be happy to have invest for you?
As always, good luck and good trading to all!![]()
Exactly. I neither hate nor love VN. It's simply the truth that he blows up and passes his hat around for another go at it. What's wrong with that? Why do people have such a hard time confronting the truth, especially when it causes them no expense or injury to do it? Notice how many times on VN threads that a VN worshipper will rebut the fact that VN blew up with the statement that VN made his investors money. Well, no shit, we all know that, why do they feel the need to omit that he lost nearly all of it? What purpose does it serve them to be selective with their facts?
Vic's story is not much different than anyone elses - he made money, he lost it. He was able to brand himself as an eccentric genius and therefore generates much discussion.