Q&A One more thing why don’t you post on RB and refute the clowns over there?
I have never seen such a concentrated effort to an insignificant absurd OTC stock, which borders on down right fear uncertainity and desperation in their negative postings and they will do anything to thrash the stock and create fear, uncertainity & doubt.
RB bashers are out to kill any interest in the stock.
Why don’t you do your job and post on RB, no one knows this stock better than you?
I am new on the Internet and RB seems to be a war ground, who should I believe?
There are a lot more but I will address the “who should I believe first.” Well you should believe what research you do first and foremost. It is not wise to believe the rhetoric on the Internet. Posts are basically laced with a negative or positive bias. It will not take you long to see which ones are which.
Typically when I read information on the internet I evaluate the following:
1. Accuracy Quotient: (Does the poster have a duty to post unbias information? Is the information reliable and unrefutable? Was unbias due diligence applied? Was both sides of the bias applied? Sources cited which are verifiable? Is the information believable because of verification or just well written words?)
2. Authority Quotient (Who is the author of the information? What are their qualifications? Who supports the poster? Is it organized? Is the poster reputable or legitimate? Does the poster not want anyone believing anyone but them? ) Note: if you do not know who the poster is you rarely can answer any of these and beware the ones that tout their qualifications but hide behind an alias because you can’t verify it. One comfort is if you know who the poster is at least they have the courage to be known and typically will stand behind their posts.
3. Objectivity Quotient (Does the information reveal a bias? What is the point of view of the poster? Is the information trying to sway you? Is the information a true and proper analysis of information or solid answers or convenient selected information that reflects a solid bias?)
5. Coverage Quotient (How is the information presented neutral, negative or positive? Is the Information cursory or in-depth covering all aspects?)
Be Skeptical until you can prove information is legitimate through your own independent research. Consider the source and please remember that the people touting or bashing a stock may be company insiders or paid promoters who stand to profit at your expense should the price escalate or ex-insiders, ex-consultants, deals gone bad, shorters who stand to profit at your expense should the price deflate. Always independently verify all information & claims. Beware of negative or positive high pressure pitches and emotional posts. ALWAYS research the company and carefully read – the company's prospectus and current financial statements.
I have had one motto since I began trading on line. “If you can’t answer a question then why do you own the stock.”
Now as far as RB, I do not post there because Bart does not want me taking up my time in some ridiculous cyber battle. However, IHUB was fine to post on and answer shareholder questions but it started being clogged with nonsense and I have gone to SI where I can have a BANNED feature.
I am not the type of IR that just sits on my hands and answers the phone and does nothing really. I feel and have always believed that an IR should interact with shareholders to answer questions and keep the facts straight but some on the internet do not like that one bit because it kills hype and bash. SO they use I am paid as a discrediting scenario yet I am bound to have duty in my posts as the IR and accountable to the SEC where "joe public" poster is not.
Facts are facts but typically there is convenient information either left out or a twist put in to serve the agenda of the poster. Neutral posters are rare but they do exist. But without negatives then the thread will die and no communication at all. Bashers serve a purpose. Some are absurd and most of the time they are put on ignore even on RB. Hard to do but it happens. Then there is the cronies that have nothing to really offer except support of the negative or positive leaders.
If I had to say who was the negative leader that would be the arrival of ******* from the SOCT thread and the positive would be the long ******. I would bet most of the questions I get come from a particular negative's post who is very deliberate. He causes people to think and at least look for a clarification. Without him there would nothing much to refute, answer or clarify and to date has not shown an emotional side. Besides, nothing worst than a dead thread of longs except maybe a stock that does not trade. Is that what the negatives want … probably so because when the stock has no trading the negatives are basically silent. Let volume hit it and they come out of the woodwork. What is a shame is more long investors do not refute negative comments and make the clarifications that the negative is sharp enough to include but doesn’t. Why should he? He does not own it. He is testing to see just who does know why they own the stock and if they really know their investment. Nothing wrong with that and if this negative was to leave all you would have would be the emotional bashers that just clogged the thread so information cannot come out, but that is normal. Longs should really thank this negative and use him in solid debate. Active board then.
One particular long is my most troublesome poster though. When I do read RB which is rare now because most of it is not worth reading. he does read the filings and does do research and ask questions I can’t answer. Not that they are inside but he looks to the future. He puts things together and even in the live interview the only questions that were dangerous were his. To answer them would be in violation of regulation FD. Where the negatives want specific inside information of the past, this long is analytical and wanted the potential of the future. He is that way when he posts also.
RB is like most threads. Good and evil, positive and negative, deliberate and emotional, pros and cons in a constant war. Thus my job is not to interrupt the flow of debate, information or war, my job is just to answer questions posed to me by shareholders. Of course I get the typical I deserve the right to know this and that, which most of the time has not been released and thus not public information.
Bart wants the debate and does not want me in it. So SI is the best place right now because it has the best financial tools and I can ban anyone who wants to enter into a debate with me. That is not what I will do and thus if I ban someone it is like hanging up the phone. ALso it is a pay site and most won't pay to post.
Really does anyone really read the information of the internet. I did an error on purpose as an example in a post I did in one of the Q&A post. Yep, I have an intentional mistake. I am curious who discovers the error. I did it to see who is actually reading the information.
The point is do people really do their homework and know their investment, is the message board really that big of an influence on the market? That is the main purpose of the threads, to post and expect a clarification or refute. To error is human and some are to test. I may have more than one but I am sure someone will correct any mistakes I make if someone finds this one. It is not a big one just a convenient omission.
So before you scream foul understand that communication and talking about the investment is vital to getting interest. If people actually start doing the verifications CBQ will come out on the potential side as an investment because it sure does not have the volume to day trade.
Hope this clarifies some of the concerns. I will post tomorrow the error.
CIIR cash & restricted stock.
Gary Swancey |
