PartyTime,
I have never shorted an OTC:BB stock. I have however been considered a "basher" of sorts in the past. I always went after the business model and not the people.
I do short stocks, I also go long. I pretty much stick with regular Nasdaq stocks with an occassional NYSE stock.
I don't see why you don't include an equivalent to your item "c". If there can be sincere longs in the OTC:BB world, there can also be sincere shorts. And I suspect that the vast majority of them are. And if it is acceptable for longs to highlight the positive attributes of their favorite OTC:BB, it must surely also be acceptable for the shorts to highlight the negative attributes.
What concerns me though is that people are choosing to see every action that A@P ever made as some nefarious action, when in fact it is likely that is not the case. And if a Mom and Pop buys into a class "a" situation (organized touts) and a class "b" or "c" type (organized shorts, sincere shorts), it is really the class "a" types that screwed over the mom and pop, not the "b" and "c". They just shined the light on the cockroaches. I don't think that there is any question though as to what my feelings are about the tactics that A@P employed. And if he was extorting people and if he had terrorist ties, well....I have no sympathy for him.
I don't think that I agree that a .org approach is necessarily better than a .com approach. Though it would probably keep motives out of question. Do you also then agree that any promoting should be done by a .org approach rather than a .com? Basically, only hobbyist can either promote or expose a stock? Doesn't seem like you would get too much accomplished. And if you don't want the .com approach on the exposing side, aren't you stacking the deck in favor of the promoters since you would only have hobbyists exposing the scams?
Think about it realistically, we have .orgs that are supposed to protect us from these scams, but they still proliferate. |
