"Steve was purposely "fanning the flames" over there..."
This is a theory that has been put forth lately, i.e. Steve only posts information over there to fire them up so to speak, and that the information is not accurate, so we can't rely on it, and that when he has something truthful to say he will come on this board and post it.
I could really use someone to help me understand this concept... because I don't. How is anyone, say me for instance, supposed to know the difference between what I can believe about his posts over there, and what I should not believe. Seems to me that if one follows the logic of him only posting to fire them up, then no one should believe ANYTHING he posts over there. Yet... many on this board, including me, have quoted what Steve said over there in rebutting what the naysayers have said. So how can he wear two hats over there so to speak? Seems to me, either he speaks the truth ALL the time over there, or never. Unless of course there is some embedded code... a dog whistle so to speak, that only some can hear and know that a specific post is not accurate. Other than that, how are pro-PNCH people supposed to know when and what to believe ? I also have a little problem thinking the CEO of a publically traded company selectively determines when and when not to tell the truth, even IF its to fire someone up. You can fire someone up with the truth also, you don't need to misrepresent issues to do that.
Personally, I can not buy into the concept that he selectively misleads readers on that board. Wouldn't that make matters worse? People over there already think he lies about everything... why give them FACTS that can be used against him. Seems to me the worst action he could take is to lead them to believe he is not being honest.
Someone please help me understand this. And if I need to be issued a special decoder cypher, please send it PM so the bashers don't get it.
