Louis,
You were flamed by me in the past, because you HYPED PLSIA and had no command of the facts. Your knowledge base of PLSIA was weak and a good deal of the HYPE you posted has now been shown to be false. In contrast, my claims about PLSIA have now been confirmed in the THEStreet.com article written by Jesse Eisinger.
<<Sorry, but I don't believe people have the right to post anything they want, with reckless disregard for the norms of civil discourse.>>
Louis, you seem to think it is acceptable for you to post inaccurate HYPE, which may harm investors, but at the same time, you want to define what others express. You seem to want your freedom of expression but you want to define what freedoms others have and are acceptable?
I suggest you get over your bruised ego, and set aside our differences to look at the bigger issue here as it could affect us all in a very profound way.
For instance, is it acceptable to:
1. Violate the privacy of a nom de plume by posting a reward for their private & confidential information.
2. Harass a person, with no evidence of wrong doing, by posting a reward for their personal & confidential information.
3. Take actions to intimidate persons for posting contrary comments about companies which the intimidator <Westergaard> is paid to "represent".
4. Allow a paid corporate representative <Westergaard> to define what is acceptable commentary about stocks they are paid to "represent".
These are significant legal, moral and ethical internet issues -- much bigger than our past differences.
I offer you my apology for the harsh style I have expressed with you in some of our past debates, in the hopes that we can move forward with a new respect for one another. But, I am thankful for one thing about our disagreements.
I am glad that we are free to agree and disagree without the threat of harassment and intimidation.
Cheers Steve |
