Brad: You omitted, or, at a minimum, put a wicked spin on the real issue here.
I don't think anyone would disagree with Westergaard's right to sell his services online nor with his view that these services include guaranteed positive reviews of the Company. The latter is of very questionable ethics for a service that, to the reader, is assumed to be an objective analysis. But, to quote Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, everyone does it. [If Mr. Westergaard - if that's his real name - is so hell bent on what I believe to be an adolescent approach to name attribution and 'facts', why not state, at a very prominent place on his web page, the cost and other conditions for Companies to appear there. It ain't gonna happen because John Westergaard draws a line in the sand when full disclosure comes full circle.]
No, Brad, the real problem is Westergaard has (at least twice) shown his willingness to go one step beyond everyone else. Can you name one other stock hypster, on line or not, who offers 'rewards' to those expressing views contrary to his? Can you confirm or deny the validity of the following statement made in an earlier post:
Included in this [Westergaard's] $30,000 fee, according to Westergaard, the client gets the "sweep service" where posters providing "mis-information" on the company stock boards are identified and apparently "exposed".
While I have absolutely no proof this is true, Westergaard's behavior is consistent with it. Assuming for now it for real, tell me, do you agree with its premises? That is, John Westergaard has a greater lock on 'truth' than everyone else? And because of this ability (and $30,000), it is tantamount to a public service that he must 're-inform' the wayward children out there. And this 'reformation' process includes monetary incentives that, by clear implication, give those promulgating the 'misinformation' the appearance of criminality.
There is no other possible interpretation of John Westergaard's actions.
Best wishes,
Peter |
