"Just Words on a Page"

[SoulSurfer]

Everwiser, care to explain why "Just Numbers on a Screen" was locked?
Someone researches PIPS for months and writes a book; is that not worthy of an open-ended discussion? Or is this a case of "when denial turns to censorship"? Are the words "just numbers on a screen" too painful to have floating up and down on your PIPS program page?

The real question stands (unanswered): Why would Bryan Marsden endorse the posting of soaring individual account totals as late as the middle of August if they did not correspond to the exact truth of the situation? (And, what is the moral justification for doing so?)

I could offer a "top three" list of possible reasons, but I defer to those of you who have more knowledge or are wiser than I am. Please inform me. Or, if you just believe that the numbers were correct, say so and explain why.

[everwiser]

Everwiser, care to explain why "Just Numbers on a Screen" was locked?
Someone researches PIPS for months and writes a book; is that not worthy of an open-ended discussion? Or is this a case of "when denial turns to censorship"? Are the words "just numbers on a screen" too painful to have floating up and down on your PIPS program page?

The real question stands (unanswered): Why would Bryan Marsden endorse the posting of soaring individual account totals as late as the middle of August if they did not correspond to the exact truth of the situation? (And, what is the moral justification for doing so?)

I could offer a "top three" list of possible reasons, but I defer to those of you who have more knowledge or are wiser than I am. Please inform me. Or, if you just believe that the numbers were correct, say so and explain why.

The only way to legitimately discuss Owen Platt's book is for those who wish to discuss it to first read it. Being that the majority of the members of this forum choose to wait for the outcome of the investigation and have no interest in reading anything that OP has written, the thread was really not going to go anywhere but down. What's really the point of leaving it open?

The question of whether or not the money in Pips was merely "numbers on a screen", that particular question has been asked, unanswered, and asked again so many times that to continue the thread on that basis is pointless as well.

Realistically, there is nothing to do but wait for the conclusion of the investigation(s). There are many good topics of discussion left for members to engage in without rehashing something that, for the time being at least, is a dead-end and unanswerable question.

Everwiser

[newlife]

You are perfectly correct Everwiser.

We have no reason to discuss old issues over and over again.

[SoulSurfer]

OK. I accept your answer and I am glad you at least admit the possibility that the money in PIPS may have been just numbers on a screen...

It may be an old issue, but it certainly is not a "dead" issue and may come back to bite you someday. Frankly I can't think of other "good topics left" that could be more important... but if nobody wants to discuss it, fine.

I understand.

[everwiser]

OK. I accept your answer and I am glad you at least admit the possibility that the money in PIPS may have been just numbers on a screen...

It may be an old issue, but it certainly is not a "dead" issue and may come back to bite you someday. Frankly I can't think of other "good topics left" that could be more important... but if nobody wants to discuss it, fine.

I understand.

No one said it was dead or that it may not have to be addressed. That being said however, no one will know until BNM (and/or any others looking into this) finishes their investigation.

Subject closed.