Clickbait Title: if the price is zero then you can buy all the sharesI tell you what, when you try and tell this story you either sum it up in ten minutes wi...
Thanks for the reply. I would encourage you to watch the video in it’s entirety because it answers some of the questions you had. There’s a particularly relevant section about the crowd research you mentioned.
Forgive me if this isn’t the case but it seems like you stopped watching right after that slide because he goes into how the phrases on the list aren’t accurate.
Dan Olson is a documentary filmmaker, not some anti-gamestop crusader. It’s his job to study and report on complex topics.
The takeaway question is…who will be paying when everyone cashes out? Where’s that money coming from?
I skimmed through the video and stopped to watch the parts that felt important to understanding the narrative being made.
Sure. The creator “goes into how the phrases on the list aren’t accurate,” and presumably, the conclusion is that GME investors are therefore clueless and talking pure nonsense. It is true I did not watch all of the video but I did CTRL+F through the YouTube transcript and could not find a single mention of the word “cellar” as in cellar boxing.
So, regardless of what all is said in the video, “cellar boxing” is falsely presented as a notion that simply means that when it is mentioned by Apes, Apes are saying that the price is going down, that there is a “lack of upward price movement” and that this is what cellar boxing means. This is of course completely inaccurate but is not expanded upon at all. The casual viewer might be left with the impression that this is all that the term cellar boxing is and that any alternative description provided by these delusional cultists is therefore nonsensical, because these people are not rational thinkers.
Sure, Dan Olson is a documentary film maker, no dispute there.
Has any documentary film maker ever made a documentary before that had an agenda? Has there ever been a documentary that deliberately reports false information as truth? Is it possible that Dan Olson has deliberately or inadvertently stated incorrect information in this documentary as truth?
Is it possible that an “independent” documentary filmmaker could be approached by somebody with bags full of cash and asked to please create a documentary about this specific subject and be sure to include statements X, Y, and Z?
I’m not saying that Dan Olson has accepted money to create a hit piece, because I don’t have the evidence to conclude that. What I am saying is that it cannot be denied that this is a possibility. Have wall street incumbents ever paid a media channel anywhere to spread positive or negative sentiment about a certain subject that would conveniently be beneficial to their position?
As for your takeaway question: if the delusional GME cultists are to be believed, the money comes from short hedge funds who have bet against the company by short selling and naked short selling the stock, who carry these open short positions that were never closed. This is part of the understanding of the cellar boxing theory, a theory which is conveniently disregarded in this video.
I think it’d be unfair for both of us to discuss this further without having both seen the film in its entirety. I don’t have a horse in this race either way
It would have been a waste if we discussed anything at all but nobody was willing to watch the video.
I did love the “how can this guy be right when we all did our research and came to the same conclusion” - a specific argument explained in the video lol
Remember when reddit came to the conclusion on who the Boston bomber was? How could they have been wrong if so many people agreed???
Ya they just watched a bit of the video, imagined what might be in the rest of it, and started arguing against this strawman they created. Almost completely disconnected from reality. In retrospect I shouldn’t be surprised that people who are still gme culting two and a half years later are disconnected from reality but it is disappointing.
Either way good on you, dude. You tried to help them.
Thanks for the reply. I would encourage you to watch the video in it’s entirety because it answers some of the questions you had. There’s a particularly relevant section about the crowd research you mentioned.
Forgive me if this isn’t the case but it seems like you stopped watching right after that slide because he goes into how the phrases on the list aren’t accurate.
Dan Olson is a documentary filmmaker, not some anti-gamestop crusader. It’s his job to study and report on complex topics.
The takeaway question is…who will be paying when everyone cashes out? Where’s that money coming from?
I skimmed through the video and stopped to watch the parts that felt important to understanding the narrative being made.
Sure. The creator “goes into how the phrases on the list aren’t accurate,” and presumably, the conclusion is that GME investors are therefore clueless and talking pure nonsense. It is true I did not watch all of the video but I did CTRL+F through the YouTube transcript and could not find a single mention of the word “cellar” as in cellar boxing.
So, regardless of what all is said in the video, “cellar boxing” is falsely presented as a notion that simply means that when it is mentioned by Apes, Apes are saying that the price is going down, that there is a “lack of upward price movement” and that this is what cellar boxing means. This is of course completely inaccurate but is not expanded upon at all. The casual viewer might be left with the impression that this is all that the term cellar boxing is and that any alternative description provided by these delusional cultists is therefore nonsensical, because these people are not rational thinkers.
Sure, Dan Olson is a documentary film maker, no dispute there.
Has any documentary film maker ever made a documentary before that had an agenda? Has there ever been a documentary that deliberately reports false information as truth? Is it possible that Dan Olson has deliberately or inadvertently stated incorrect information in this documentary as truth?
Is it possible that an “independent” documentary filmmaker could be approached by somebody with bags full of cash and asked to please create a documentary about this specific subject and be sure to include statements X, Y, and Z?
I’m not saying that Dan Olson has accepted money to create a hit piece, because I don’t have the evidence to conclude that. What I am saying is that it cannot be denied that this is a possibility. Have wall street incumbents ever paid a media channel anywhere to spread positive or negative sentiment about a certain subject that would conveniently be beneficial to their position?
As for your takeaway question: if the delusional GME cultists are to be believed, the money comes from short hedge funds who have bet against the company by short selling and naked short selling the stock, who carry these open short positions that were never closed. This is part of the understanding of the cellar boxing theory, a theory which is conveniently disregarded in this video.
I think it’d be unfair for both of us to discuss this further without having both seen the film in its entirety. I don’t have a horse in this race either way
You posted a video, but you haven’t seen it, and you don’t want to discuss it.
…I’ve watched it. They haven’t.
Your time is wasted on these apes, wrinkle brain.
It would have been a waste if we discussed anything at all but nobody was willing to watch the video.
I did love the “how can this guy be right when we all did our research and came to the same conclusion” - a specific argument explained in the video lol
Remember when reddit came to the conclusion on who the Boston bomber was? How could they have been wrong if so many people agreed???
Ya they just watched a bit of the video, imagined what might be in the rest of it, and started arguing against this strawman they created. Almost completely disconnected from reality. In retrospect I shouldn’t be surprised that people who are still gme culting two and a half years later are disconnected from reality but it is disappointing.
Either way good on you, dude. You tried to help them.
If it made one person reconsider, it’s worth it!