Rrufff, in reply to the questions in your initial post...
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?
First off, I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that you "embarrassed" theWorm06. And even if you had a panel of judges saying you did, if someone claimed they embarrassed you, would you not try to prove them wrong if you truly thought you were in the right? Of course you would. It's human nature.
When I read his blog, I look carefully at his research on stocks. The rest, to me, is entertainment. I know that's a harsh word when you consider yourself personally under attack, but what better word is there? I've been called a "paid basher" for years. I've never been paid as much as a penny to "bash." I've never known a single person ever to have been paid to bash. I'm not even sure how many people who make that claim truly believe it. Assuming they do, what can I do? So, again, it's just entertainment.
Do you justify exposing personal information of posters who express opinions on stocks, which opinions are contrary to your very own?
You posted personal information about someone you identified as theWorm06. Are you asking me if it's OK that you do it but not the person you've targeted?
Anyone with kids knows these sorts of arguments boil down to "he started it." Even if we assume "he started it" and you were just coming to someone else's aid, trying to end one battle doesn't automatically preclude another from beginning which appears to have been the case here.
Where I do draw the line is going after someone's personal life, assuming it has nothing to do with "the business of stocks". But if someone volunteers information about themselves, then, IMO, it's fair game to challenge the credibility of it. So one should not claim they are a lawyer if they are not, or they live somewhere they don't, and so on. SI is excellent at deleting personal info if you ask. But if you are going to post "Is this the real name of so and so..." don't cry when someone does that to you.
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?
I personally put longs and non-longs (notice I didn't use the word shorts) into two categories: those who focus on the company and those who focus on the stock. What I truly dislike is when people pretend to believe in a company when all they truly care about is getting a good pop in the stock price so they can dump. We're talking pennies here, of course. The people getting fleeced are the innocent true believers they suck in. This attitude that you have to protect your investment by silencing any negative opinions is a crock. When you ban people because they aren't "long and strong" and, worse, you demonize them, all in the name of protecting your investment, as opposed to engaging in debate about questionable PRs, missed deadlines, and secretive dilution, that, to me, is the definition of promotion.
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?)
As long as people are honest with their intentions, anything goes on message boards. The line is, of course, drawn if someone is legally obligated to disclose. By this I mean that if someone were to write "XYZ stock is being pumped by tout sites and I can make money on the pump and buy back after the dump", then good for them. If someone else were to write "This company may be a POS or even a scam" then I would consider the proper reply to be (if asked): "Thanks but no thanks because, frankly, I don't care a whit about the company." Again, I draw the line when they try to silence dissent solely for the purpose of protecting their investment.
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?
No one has a duty to post anything. But if someone knows or suspects something to be true and silences or disputes it publicly, that's being dishonest. If they do it consistently, that's helping to perpetuate a fraud, IMO. No, it doesn't necessarily make them culpable in a court of law, just pretty darn slimy considering all the moms and pops who are not sophisticated enough to know they are getting played.
- Jeff |
