Doug, I think you missed the boat on your analysis of this thread.
I think we are all interested obtaining information which is either good or bad about the company. What we resent is someone who blows in from who knows where, has no real history on this forum,(Bob became SI registered on Feb.28,'97, just 30 days ago, and Nijad bacame SI registered on Feb. 25,'97, only 33 days ago), and proceeds to lay out a strong condemnation of the company and its officers while offering not one shred of supportable evidence.
Consider for instance that Mojave asked Bob (#513):
"Bob, can you please tell me EXACTLY who you got the info from that company insiders got the shares for one cent. I would like a specific broker or if it was the company itself please let me know."
This is asking for a way to check up on whether Bob's claims are legitimate or not. On the web, anonymous people can claim anything they want to, and appear authoritative. How on the web can we ferret out the genuine from the fakes? By asking for specific verifiable information.
What was Bob's response? Check out Post #518:
"I`ve already mentioned several times that I got the info from the REQUIRED company "broker due diligence" paackage (sic) that they MUST have available. That shows how their capital structure came to exist and so forth. Each and every market maker is REQUIRED tohave (sic) the info on file PRIOR to making a market in the stock."
Since I too am interested in following up this lead, to whom shall I address my inquiry, based on Bob's answer?
Is it specific as requested? No.
Did Bob offer to send the printed information if it could not be obtain by Mojave? No.
Does the answer support confidence in Bob's sources or knowledge base? Well, no. Bob did go on in the same post to claim additional expertise, but on the web, anyone can claim anything. Without that crucial objective evidence, how can we know that he is genuine or fake?
On the flip side of the issue, Bob has claimed to want to save us from the hucksters.
Of both Bob and Nijad, one might say they lack respect and discretion in their written thoughts (which might exude more respect for their opinions.)
Even more scary to me is the fact that Bob and Nijad might both be the same person, borrowing other's web sites or by holding more than one E-mail address. They both appeared on the scene at about the same time. They both have the same written mannerisms. I don't know ... and again that's why it's so important to try to obtain the third party confirmation which neither of these two have provided.
By the way your comment said,
"The moment any individual says anything negative, it is automatically assumed that this person is short the stock."
In Bob's case he volunteered that he would short the stock if he could. (Post #493) And who knows whether he's already done it and is perhaps looking for more? Is this perhaps a motive for his negative posts?
In resolution, I am hoping to see the tenor of Bob's and Nijad's posts change. And I am hoping they will share with us the names and addresses, or E-mail addresses or web sites (can I be any more specific?) of the sources they use. We can all benefit from such posts, whether or not the information supports or damages our perceptions of this stock. We really ask little more, and perhaps nothing less. |
