An open post to all SI people and specifically to those who are involved in the very heated debate with respect to PLNI, whether you be bull, bear, neutral and whether or not you are considered more in the school or league with or just identified as "pumpers," "bashers" or just internet observers or commentators:
I've no position in PLNI (and have never had one) and have expressed my opinions of PLNI (pro,con,mixed) elsewhere.
It seems that the bashers here, including some who claim to be internet "freedom of speech" advocates, rely on a so-called "research department" that really is a blogger who apparently has a history of NASD "issues," to use perhaps a very mild noun, giving the benefit of doubt, and referring to generally available internet information, apparently information of which this blogger is proud that it is in the public domain. This seemingly one person "research department" is known for its inaccuracies and tactics of smear and the use of outdated boilerplate filings, rather than the provision of real information. Others have raised issues of the use and procuring of non-public information by this individual (and perhaps those who cite his work) but I leave that issue for others to debate. Issues of claims for relief under various tort laws, RICO, SEC acts and regs. thereunder, or even criminal activity are subjects for discussion perhaps elsewhere, no claim being made here material to this post or its content.
This particular blogger, has been embarrassed by some of the shareholders here and has apparently been motivated to bash this and other stocks, merely because of this embarrassment. He also was embarrassed by some guy named Zwebner and the 2 had some (most would claim quite irrational) tiffs over the years. I don't know the details there but they apparently are available over the web. I'm not taking sides or giving an opinion of the merits, as this Zwebner guy also has what most would call a "checkered" background, again based on his internet persona readily available on message boards, a persona of which he also is "proud."
I've been added to this so-called "research" blogger's list of "targets" merely because I stuck my neck out and disliked the personal attacks and threats issued to people, such as rrm, people whom I might not always agree, but who are posters that I respect and feel are honest in their opinions. I would hate to see these people stop posting and was saddened to see one stop his paid membership in SI. Being a person who does not shy away from threats of intimidation in real life or online, and who opines for better or worse when I see wrongs that need some "righting," I decided to join the fray and expose the inadequacies in logic of this particular blogger. I never threatened him. His information, of which he is proud, is readily available and quite frankly casts serious doubts as to his credibility. I.e., his online persona provides its own positives (if any) and negatives and it is open for all, and he has no objection and, in some distorted way, is proud of what most would consider a "checkered" history at best.
I told him truthfully that I had no position in PLNI. He persisted in asking rather inane and largely irrelevant questions, which I continued to answer, again exposing his inadequacies in logic and, in actuality, apparently led to his site meltdown and subsequent banishment. He later seemingly attempted to "sneak" back on with the use of a new alias, this attempt also foiled by the administrators.
So, I would ask the bashers, some of whom had previously enjoyed good reputations, at least within their own "community." Do you condone this person's tactics? I don't expect to get an objective answer, but I'm curious, particularly with respect to Jeffrey Mitchell who is generally thought of as being objective and puts himself out as an advocate for internet posters' anonymous internet freedoms and who has been very actively citing this blogger's "research" as an authority.
I would urge anyone interested to take a look at this "research" blogger's latest attempts for reinstatement on IHub where he publicly posted a request for personal and family information belonging to the administrators and owners of the website, presumably to harass them (why else would you solicit family information?) because this duplicate (or is the word duplicitous?) alias was unceremoniously rendered impotent there despite his begging for reinstatement, a passion play I find a bit comical, but sad, given the fact that so many of the basher community apparently cite and hold this individual in some type of reverence.
So, to Jeff and others who "bash" or "pump" or just post your opinions - what do you really think of a "researcher" who threatens to expose personal information of those with whom he disagrees?
To Jeff Mitchell and "friends" specifically -
Do you think your calls or work for internet freedom of speech are best served by citing someone who bases his "bashing" on the fact that he has been embarrassed (or perhaps feels inadequate) or with whom he disagrees as internet posters on message boards?
Do you justify exposing personal information of posters who express opinions on stocks, which opinions are contrary to your very own?
Do you agree with this person who would claim that a positive post implies that someone is a "promoter" of a stock, given the use of that term in SEC and stock related discussion?
Do you agree with this person who would claim that the mere posting of opinions on message boards requires some type of disclaimer and review (and posting) of historical data and filings (largely immaterial to current situations with the company and analysis of its prospects?)
Do you think that anyone who posts favorably on a stock has a duty to disclose unfavorable information about that stock? If so, does he have a duty to actually investigate and discover that information and then post it?
I do realize that some of these questions could lead to questions about the fairness of calling someone a "paid basher" when one knows not if that is the case in fact. I would agree that some temperance is needed, but there is a difference. I've rarely seen anyone threaten a basher just because he is a basher, threats that relate to that poster's freedom to post anonymously and safely (other than with the empty macho type threats, which are also to be condemned.)
Clearly, this blogger wishes to stop others from posting contrary to his own opinions and contrary to the merit of his so-called "research." Do you agree with this approach Jeffrey Mitchell? Do you lend credence to it by your association? Do you perhaps demean your own "internet reputation" by doing so? Is your own credibility at risk here?
I've had differences with Jeff and both of us have said unkind things about each other over the past years. But I am very curious as to whether or not he would answer these questions as he is perceived as having a reputation for objectivity and he puts himself out as a proponent of whatever enhances the freedoms on the internet of anonymous posters, freedom from harassment, freedom to post without worry of threats to one's family, etc. He even has a board that supposedly discusses litigation that threatens these freedoms. I'm the only banee from that board, which quite glaringly raises issues about the very nature of the board and motivations. One could argue that the goal perhaps is to have a board dedicated to the protection of freedom of anonymous internet speech, but only if its content is favorable to said proponents and posters. These very posters often object (as do I) to boards which only allow positive posts. Quite ironic and, in my opinion, hypocritical.
In any event, PLNI has its risks and rewards. So far, the share price seems little affected and perhaps those who make decisions to buy or sell have ignored the obvious attempts at bashing as those with motivations that are, at best, questionable. It is also possible that the mere campaign by a basher motivated by personal animosity and who uses very questionable tactics is perhaps a bullish sign. I had jokingly called him a "contra-indicator," but perhaps there was more truth to that than even I realized. |
