Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Reel Ken  

View Reel Ken's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Buffalo,

    Thank you.

    Glad if I was able to clarify what has become a very confused situation.

    Good luck.
    Jul 2, 2015. 04:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Marky,

    Do you find is soooo hard to acknowledge that what the Industry says and what CARB says, are two different things?

    That HELM made an error.

    If you continue to try to hide behind a statement made by the Industry as "cover" for HELM's patently false statement, then it diminishes any argument you put forth.
    Jun 30, 2015. 04:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Marky,

    You just don't get it, so I'll try again.

    The Industry is offering an opinion about deconstructing. They are DISCUSSING it. They are putting forth a POSITION. They are not representing that CARB says what they say. In fact, a discussion or position pre-supposes that CARB has a different take on it.

    Helm, in his comment, was crystal clear...yes, that's crystal clear ... he said that CARB said, publicly, it was ineffective.

    CARB said no such thing and that's what I was bringing forth.

    Now, if you want to discuss the merits of deconstructing and the Industry vs. CARB, I'm most happy to. Or if you want to discuss whether or not CARB considers deconstructing in-effective ... let's go at it. You could use a little more insight into that, as well.

    But as far as HELM's comment ... that CARB said, publicly, it was ineffective ... that remains patently false.

    It is fruitless to continue to have a discussion about this until you can acknowledge that there are two different issues...I'll make it as simple as I can:

    1) Did CARB publicly state that deconstructing is in-effective?

    2) IS deconstructing in-effective?

    As long as you insist that the answers to BOTH these questions is YES, then you lack the appropriate logic or analytical skills to discern any further differential on the issue. In that case, excuse me if I restrict my dialogue to someone with appropriate skills.
    Jun 30, 2015. 03:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Marky,

    Nice try to get yourself out of a box.

    I know what CARB says and what it means ... that's why I was able to easily recognize that "ineffective" was a fabrication ... it is not what CARB says.

    I was not arguing an interpretation of what CARB actually said .. I simply pointed out that "ineffective" is NOT what they said. There are just too many readers altering the truth and presenting it as fact. I'm surprised you defend them instead of correct them.

    Sorry if I was brought up in the school that believes that when someone attributes a stament to someone else...it should actually be the statement they made...not an alteration designed to imply a different meaning.

    Furthermore... the quote you post above isn't what CARB said ... it is an interpretation/discuss... of what CARB said. I've already posted on this thread exactly what CARB says...just look for it.

    The above quote properly states that CARB "acknowledged" not that CARB "said."

    Now, if you want to say that CARB's statement is semantically the same as ineffective, then go ahead. We can argue that till death do us part... but I'll keep highlighting when people, including you, falsely attribute statements.
    Jun 30, 2015. 11:13 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Enersavr,

    So, instead of posting an article that inappropriately labels fiction as "fact" you now instablog the same assertions but preface it, instead, with "in my opinion". That's a good step forward by finally acknowledging that there's a difference between "fact" and opinion.

    I respect the opinion of those with technical abilities, credentials or qualifications in relevant fields. Less so, those without any formal training in the relevant field just "chatter-boxing".

    You have refused to state any qualifications you have in the relevant fields, nor even acknowledged that qualifications are important ..... In fact, you have rationalized that qualifications are not relevant when you are simply relaying "facts" to the readership.

    Well, now that you are no longer just relaying "facts" (or what you thought were "facts") but are relaying opinions and conclusions, do you still think it is appropriate to say qualifications are of no value?
    Jun 29, 2015. 11:10 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi cajundave,

    I don't have the facts or the subpoena power to get the facts. But, there are many ways to prove many things.

    If they were mislabeled, I would think it would be pretty easy to find the traces necessary to prove. I would be surprised in a foolproof cover-up.

    You do raise an interesting point about deconstructive testing. Once laminate is applied, there is no way to reliably test. The product has been altered. It can never be tested in the same state as required at the manufacturing level. Non-destructive testing is as unreliable as deconstructive testing.

    Once laminate is applied, it has a condom effect. So non-deconstructive testing will not give the same results as pre-laminate testing --- which is the required standard. Deconstructive is an attempt to approximate the pre-laminate state...but also has problems.

    So, what we're left with is two methods, neither of which can replicate what was required at the factory level. Deconstructive might overstate and non-deconstructive will absolutely understate emissions.

    What is really needed is to establish emission levels for non-destructive testing at lower levels than a pre-laminate state. That would require legislation.

    So, CARB must look at the data and make a determination as to what is most likely. I suspect that's what they're doing.
    Jun 29, 2015. 04:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Marky,

    Thank you. CARB never said it was "ineffective" they said it was "variable".

    There's a big difference.

    Here's CARB's official position ...

    "There is some variability and uncertainty associated with sample preparation and emissions testing. This is not unique to testing of composite wood products. CARB staff accounts for this when considering whether or not enforcement action should be taken."

    Just another case of you and the pro-LLers, changing what was said into what they want to have had been said and then putting it forth as if it was fact.
    Jun 29, 2015. 04:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi loufah,

    Yes. Enersavr repeated the article (some minor changes) and it was deleted by SA for factual inaccuracies.

    The BMI comment apparently referred to , not 60 minutes, but Zhou's testing of Home Depot.

    Suggest you follow this link (http://seekingalpha.co...) and page down to Bryantbalanchard's comment. It pretty much gives the story.
    Jun 29, 2015. 04:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi WTF,

    Suggest you re-read at 93120.5 (a)(b) and (c). It DOES NOT SAY, as you say "ONLY (caps added) responsible for instructing each supplier to comply with applicable emission standards and obtain written documentation to that effect...." It says that as a MINIMUM they must instruct as indicated.

    Furthermore, under 93120.5(a) they have the same burden as the manufacturer.

    If you are going to "make things up" at least show the ingenuity to make up some section of the regulations that doesn't exist or can't be looked up in 5 seconds ... this is just too easy to show an outright fabrication.

    This statement of yours is so typical of the misinformation and alterations that permeate the longs. It would be more effective if you just stayed silent than offer altered statements that are patently false. At least then you wouldn't diminish the pro-LL case.

    And please, get off the "required" use of deconstructing bandwagon. That has been debunked several months ago.

    Perhaps there just isn't any "fresh" propaganda that is meaningful so recycling old news is the best that can be done by the longs.
    Jun 29, 2015. 04:37 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi zorrow,

    ...".......If there is any criminal indictments pending--they have to be put on the table now--because they are an issue in the consolidated class action filings..."

    This is in conflict with your current statement......

    ...".......no civil class action suit will be certified until any criminal matters that impinge on the litigation are dealt with...."

    What did you mean by "putting on the table now"?
    Jun 29, 2015. 12:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Marky56,

    Enersavr was promoting JCP to make his own point ... that it is all about the consumer.

    Maybe you didn't get.
    Jun 29, 2015. 12:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Zorrow,

    Sorry, you're just completely off on this. In a consolidation motion the judge makes no determination as to the validity of the claim... the judge just determines whether or not the various claims are similar enough in law or fact to be consolidated.

    Furthermore, these are civil cases and there is no way in heaven that a civil case takes precedence over a criminal case. They aren't even tried in the same courts.

    Where do you get this?

    Many times, if there is a criminal proceeding, a civil judge will postpone the case pending the criminal outcome. It is NEVER (yes that's NEVER) the other way around.

    The reason is very simple ... there is a greater burden in a criminal case than a civil case. Judges generally are reluctant to make rulings when the greater burden is being tried. I could explain why, but you should really look these things up...it is better to learn something than continue to go off half-cocked.
    Jun 29, 2015. 11:30 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi zorrow,

    I'm confused, your post seems to be out of left field.

    Are you referring to the recent consolidation? .. and if so, what does that have to do with what you're suggesting?

    Since when are criminal proceedings put on the back burner pending civil action?... Civil litigants often put their suits on hold pending the outcome of criminal trials.

    Agree that LL will trade on its earnings....EVENTUALLY... for the time being it will trade with an "uncertainty discount".
    Jun 29, 2015. 10:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Enersavr,

    Is the best "poster child" you could find JCP? If so, it doesn't say much.

    JCP continued to languish and bleed money.

    Maybe it's not just about the consumer...maybe it's also about margins? Just a wild thought of mine.
    Jun 29, 2015. 09:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Threw In The Towel On My Lumber Liquidators Short [View article]
    Hi Bidy,

    ... "......Otherwise, the info you provide is useless to me...."

    Just curious, what use would you put to the information, once you got it?

    For instance, what use can you put to his profit/loss?
    Jun 29, 2015. 09:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
5,033 Comments
8,518 Likes