Sure, I'd be happy to explain this in a simple way!

Imagine you have a toy collection that you really love. Now, let's say there's a special, valuable toy called "BitCoin." You want to buy more of these BitCoins because you think they'll become even more special and valuable in the future.

Peter (that's the name of the guy who said this) thinks that buying more BitCoins when their price goes up is like buying more cool stuff when your toys are worth a lot. But, he also thinks it might be risky if the value of BitCoins suddenly drops because you might have to sell some of them to pay back money you borrowed.

So, in simple terms, Peter doesn't agree with how Mr. Michael (the other guy) is buying more BitCoins when their price goes up, just like he's not sure if it's a good idea to buy lots of toys on credit if they might become less valuable later.

And that's the basic reason why these two people are having this discussion about BitCoins and how to buy them. Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some points of criticism and inconsistencies:

1. **Lack of Objective Analysis**: The article presents views from Peter Schiff, Willy Woo, and a few analysts but doesn't provide a balanced view or offer an alternative perspective. There's no mention of potential benefits of MicroStrategy's Bitcoin strategy or why it might be seen as a positive move by some.

2. **Cherry-Picking Data Points**: The article mentions that New York's median asking rent increased year-on-year but fails to discuss the broader trend, which shows consecutive months of rent decreases in many markets and Manhattan's rent still being below its pre-pandemic peak.

3. **Inconsistent Messaging**: While discussing MicroStrategy's convertible debt issues, Schiff warns about potential risks without offering concrete evidence or data points. Woo is also quoted as flagging the same risk, but it's not clear if they're referring to the same set of conversions.

4. **Relying on Emotional Language**: The article uses phrases like "flagged the risk" and "could land" which are emotive and don't convey concrete quantifiable data or analysis.

5. **Lack of Updates**: The Bitcoin price listed is a 24-hour snapshot, but the rest of the article doesn't provide context on how the market has evolved since that time.

6. **Bias Towards Schiff's Viewpoint**: The article seems to lean towards Schiff's criticism without presenting solid counterarguments from MicroStrategy or others supporting their strategy.

In summary, while the article provides some useful information about the debate surrounding MicroStrategy's Bitcoin strategy, it lacks a balanced perspective, clear data points, and objective analysis.

The article has a mix of sentiments:

1. **Negative**: The article discusses critical views of MicroStrategy's Bitcoin strategy by Peter Schiff and Willy Woo. Schiff warns about the risk if Bitcoin's price falls, while Woo flags potential forced selling scenarios.

2. **Neutral/Informative**: Most of the article provides information without expressing a clear sentiment, such as detailing the debate around MicroStrategy's convertible debt offerings or stating facts like the stock's performance and analyst price targets.

3. **Bearish (implicit)**: While not explicitly stated, the mention of MicroStrategy's declining stock price (-5.41% in the last trading day) during a time when Bitcoin was relatively stable (-0.86%) could be seen as implicitly bearish for the company.

Overall, the article leans more towards negativity due to the critical viewpoints expressed regarding MicroStrategy's Bitcoin strategy but it does not have an overwhelmingly negative or positive tone. It presents information and different perspectives without a strong bias.

Sentiment: mainly Neutral with some Negative aspects.