I just wanted to make that clear for those who didn't realize. The article, reasoning etc. itself is all sound. However, when posted today without the acknowledgement of the time that the article was written for those who aren't necessarily aware of it can be highly misleading, especially given the title of the post. There should have been a disclaimer somewhere about when it was posted is all.

Also, it's supposed to be a "counter" to Rogues post, and I don't see how it is, since his criticism of posters is mostly about misconstruing evidence towards something (and speculating on that evidence) for fact about something. This creates an unhealthy level of optimism amongst the community, and unrealistic expectations. Whether it's timelines, or in this case - without further examination - price.

His criticism towards the company, from what I understand, isn't towards the metals or even managements goals or intentions - so much as it is their ability to meet timelines.

I don't see how the post counters Rogue's, and in fact see it as evidence towards some of the criticism that he has set.