Jeff,
First of all, thank you for your response. I don't disagree with your post. However, you didn't answer any of the questions in my post. Perhaps, it was my fault for being too verbose, a negative trait to which I readily admit.
I have no fear for my own personal safety or from threats or accusations made by a discredited blogger. Anyone who really knows me, knows that I can take care of myself, both in person and online. That's not the point. I asked you for your opinion with respect to these tactics and how you felt given your citation of this so-called "research department." How do you feel about his solicitation of personal information about the owners and administrators of the website? I'm not going to repeat my very long post, but am curious about your thoughts even if you disagree. But you didn't answer my questions, which again, is your right.
It seems and I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you suggesting that "ends justifies the means?" You often post about credibility. Do unseemly tactics have any effect on credibility. Does a "research department," (and notice the quotes around that term), that is so far from the truth in personal accusations, lend any credibility to those who cite it as authority? Let's not skirt the issues, Jeff. Let's face them head on. If I'm wrong, and I have been wrong, I'll admit it.
Believe it or not, and I know we have posted angrily or at cross-purposes over the years, I have often posted that I admired the work of certain "crusaders." But that did not preclude me from citing what I felt was hypocrisy, e.g., "my opinion is the one should be free and protected, etc." It's not my intent here to debate the issues we've debated, but I would defend your right to post your opinion, free from intimidation, irrespective of the fact that we often disagree. Clearly, I would not cite as an authority someone whose tactics are repugnant to me and I'm not saying that his are or are not repugnant to you. That was one of my questions.
As for Zwebner vs the worm06, I don't know all the facts and expressed my own reservations as to doing that. It may very well be that it was a "tiff" (I called it) irrational on both sides, between 2 individuals with somewhat "checkered" online pasts at best. Again, I don't know enough about either fortunately to really opine other than to express revulsion as to some of the things I have read about both. I will express my thought and opinion that I would not base investment decisions nor would I cite as authoriy blog messages of either.
As for the pitbull analogy, a pitbull can be beaten both with a kick to the teeth and the truth. Again, no threats from this end. As most who value their own credibility, I don't threaten either in real life or online.
With respect to information he may have on JMH, which you repeatedly cite, do you do yourself a service unless you know the factual basis of such claimed information and whether or not that information is true or not? I have often posted my opinions on John's posts. Sometimes I agree, other times I don't. I disagree with the banning tactics and have tried to suggest some changes to the administrators. My own opinion is that John and others have the right to post their own opinions without being attacked personally. I'm not here to defend John. You brought it up. I have no knowledge of John other than what I see here online. I've never spoken to him, met him, or had any "association" with him, not that I am implying that I don't want to or wouldn't. I've had no reason to "associate." If I were "associated" I would post it as I would post my association with you or anyone if that were material to the discussion. I've been PM'd that he is everything from Mother Theresa to the devil incarnate. I disregard all that and judge for myself from what is posted. I never buy or sell based solely on an online post and constantly urge others to do the same. I don't like the style of certain other posters, bulls and bears, as others don't like my style of posting or approach to investing. Nothing wrong with any of that.
As for "associates," and claims of "association," isn't that a bit like the "associates of Elgindy" and the claims that supportive posts showed perhaps your participation in an Enterprise? Yes, we all get tied up in our emotions and post things that we should not do, and I am just as hot-headed as anyone, I believe, including you. But there is a difference and I expected you, even if you didn't post it, to recognize that "freedom of internet speech" and threats of intimidation and accusations based on nothingness do not go together.
You don't know me from Adam, other than what I post online. I've never been paid to pump a stock. I'm not sure why anyone would ask me because, if you do really follow my posts, you know I cover perhaps 50 or more, can't be an expert on any one, and often post the pros and cons. I've been very critical of managements that dilute and dump, and have been a vocal antagonist to those who defend what I believe is illegal naked shorting and abuses by hedge funds and MM's. These are my opinions and I should be free to post them without being labelled a tout, just as posting in agreement with John or Rick or anyone does not mean I am or that either of them is an "associate" or a "promoter." I should be free to agree with them or disagree.
Again, it's not my intent here to argue my own case or to defend myself. That was not my reason for addressing you. But, as you probably know by now, I don't run from any debate or any question and I do appreciate your response. My intent was, again, to get your opinion with respect to tactics and approach and resultant effect on credibility, given your often citation of, a so-called "research department" that pretty much is run by one blogger and who
1. Issues an opinion based on 1997 filings when a company was a shell, citing "issues" long resolved or perhaps not connected with current state of events,
2. Claims that online posters who agree with each other are "associates" as that term is used generally in discussion about stocks and the SEC,
3. Claims that positive posters are "promoters" again within the universe of stock discussion as that term is commonly interpreted,
4. Solicits personal information ABOUT the owners and administrators of a website.
5. Claims to have personal information on opponents and makes attendant threats.
I could go on. This post is already too lengthy.
I've often hoped and expressed that hope that message boards would become a place where the field would be levelled such that we retail investors would work together against the moneyed interests who tend to use their position and power to get that "advantage." If there is a common theme to my posts, that is it. I've done incredibly well for myself by using the internet to get information for my investment decisions, information that I would have had to beg for before, from brokers or even highly paid consultants. However, I've been disappointed that investors have failed to work together to encourage truthfulness and openess to information and trading.
I often post about those who work for "us." Yes, legally managements work for "us" despite the general opinion that it is the other way around. I post about managements that dilute and make it seem that they are doing us a favor. I also post about hedge funds that fight so hard to keep their (in my opinion) manipulation in the dark. I also post about changes that I would advocate in the MM system such that the markets and information become universal.
Unfortunately, message boards, as you suggest, have become more tests of ego and, yes, both you and I have been guilty at times. However, that does not stop me from posting my opinion when I see a wrong, particularly when it is a cowardly act of attempted intimidation. I hope that others also will do this and that the value of internet discussion and debate can be enhanced by this.
As for gloating, I will gloat when a wrong is righted. It's an opinion and I am entitled to do so. I don't gloat because of a person's personal problems. Despite my differences with Anthony, I've posted at least a few times my own sympathy for him and his family. Yet, I thought it ironic the extent to which he, and his followers, would laugh and "gloat" at the troubles of his perceived adversaries, when they suffered losses, imprisonment and even death. Commenting on hypocrisy and tendencies that make someone less than human is something on which I intend to continue, irrespective of threats. If someone has something to say to me, I'm here. Some people know me in real life. I've never failed to answer a question online or in real life and I won't start now.
Thanks again for your courtesy. |
