Greg,
I need to speak my piece, and please understand, it is not directly purposely at you. Your post is just a catalyst. Also, I am not here to defend Julia or others.
I agree it is hard to know when a poster has a negative agenda, or when he or she may simply be both excited and skeptical of a stock, or when he or she may simply be a novice posters/investor who does not appreciation how a communication or small number of communications may be perceived.
Also, I suggest that a limited number of posts are inconclusive about Julia's motives. Because of people like Craig C., Diver, Lou S. and others across a handful of threads in which I participate, it is far too easy and too common to assume the worse. Frankly, I've reviewed Julia's posts and find nothing wrong about them. In fact, I find more wrong with the Exuberance Mongers who scare off skeptics and novices from asking questions and participating. Rah-Rah discussions are good, but too much of anything rapidly decreases its worth.
For example, Ron Reece, a person who has given a lot to investors via the SI GRNO thread was recently attacked on the DBDY because he expressed his skepticism. People called him "jealous" because so many of "his GRNO people" moved over to DBDY. He was immediately perceived by a few reactionary DBDY investors as the enemy because he was not yet a shareholder, i.e. "if you're not one of us, then you're against us." (Sound familiar? Tribalism? Racism? Maybe it should be called Investor Bigotry. For some people, everything is a soap opera!!)
Bottom Line: Ron had legitimate questions and concerns, ones shared by myself and others, but was attacked immediately after this first 1 or 2 posts. But, thankfully, Ron persisted because he is seriously interested in DBDY, and because he has a thick skin and is willing to tell people where to get off when they attack. Ron's not perfect, but in all the posts I've seen there is not indication of an agenda other than wanting to increase his portfolio's value.
BTW, I've purposedly used an example from another thread because it would be too easy to start a sniping contest here where a few Exeuberance people reside.
Bottom line on all this: If you don't like the sound of a posted message because of its negativity or undesired message (none of us like bad news), please THINK before you react. Before you react, filter the message and ask yourself what the implications are? If there is no evidence included to back up a statement, online and via email prompt the poster to give details so others can check things out. Julia did this, though not before being condemned and attacked by a pack of sharks. (I am NOT a believer in personal attacks under ANY circumstances. There are other ways to diminish the person's credibility on the thread, and usually, to get them to back off.)
If you get nothing WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, say 24-36 hours, then go back online and ask again and raise a question about credibility. Use this to prompt the posters. REASONABLE TIME is important because most of us do NOT have a computer and Internet connection surgically attached to our bodies, and the highest priority is our day job to feed, cloth and shelter our families. (The record shows this basic human courtesy was forgotten with Julia.) I am not suggesting that the statement be left unchallenged, only that the challenge have some semblence of civility to it and not be accusatory. That kind of soap opera just muddies up communications and wastes everyone's time. I encourage, and will myself, openly questioning the statement. This better informs new thread readers and helps novice lurkers understand the situation. IMO, this personal attack stuff is going to cause problems, including loss of much needed investor skepticism, loss of experienced investors willing to share their research and analysis, censorship by SI, lawsuits, to name a few. People can go elsewhere for the kind of communication we have on SI. SI is more convenient for many as a meeting place, and the value I receive here is something I do not want to lose.
I've said my piece, except to say this is not just my opinion about the attacks. I posted a message (though shorter) with s similar theme, and received private emails from mostly less frequent posters and lurkers. I've included a few comments from them in this exercise of my "freedom of speech."
And the adventure continues... |
