Jeff,
Thanks for the response but I do believe you misread my posts and didn't really answer the questions except as noted below. Again, that's ok. It's not my intent to go on and on with you with respect to something that really doesn't relate to PLNI. The real issue is the credibility of the "research department" which was cited as the source of some PLNI bash posts. I was more curious as to how you could justify some of the issues with which you have associated and your association with this "research department's" tactics but that discussion is perhaps more appropriate on other boards.
My questions did not relate to my opinion that I embarrassed anyone. That's my opinion and my posts speak for themselves. You can disagree as to whether or not he was embarrassed and that's your right. Again, my posts speak for themselves and I'm happy with them. His reactions speak for themselves also. My questions related to your association with someone whose tactics seemed to be at odds with your own professed goals on the internet. It's a question of hypocrisy and consistency. (Again, discussion is probably more appropriate on a coffee shop board.)
My questions also related to whether the person you cited as an authority had any credibility, given his apparent motivation to find anything, and largely boilerplate, "bash" material just because he has a vendetta against his perceived adversaries. I'm not asking if he should or shouldn't have a vendetta and you know that. I'm not asking whether I started it or he started it. That's all immaterial and again, the posts speak for themselves. I'm not trying to change your opinion of me and I doubt that I could do that even if I wished to do so.
As for my own posts, I'm not trying to defend myself and I clearly can give it as well as take it. However, I did not post anything that this blogger has not apparently put out himself many times over and of which he seems, strangely, quite proud. Further, I never indicated that the blogger was any individual in real life. I never mention the name of Senor whatever his name is in the same post as his online name. I have no personal knowledge at this point about him and I posted that. Others have PM'd me and there are myriad references on RB and elsewhere and they speak for themselves. They are not comparable to the level of personal attack that seems to motivate this so-called "research department." Again, I know you're not concerned with that and my own issues or threats against me and this is also immaterial to PLNI. What is material is that a "research department" colored by a personal vendetta has very little credibility in the eyes of an objective person. The damage has been done to this "research department's" credibility and I don't think anything you or I may say will change that. That's my opinion and his "work" speaks for itself.
As far as my own posting of my own personal information, I don't believe I have ever posted it. I may be wrong. I've been accused online of being a pumper, a basher, a tout, an engineer, a children's book author, Bob O'Brien LOL, a liberal, a conservative, a hawk, a dove, a Republican, a Democract, a tree hugger, an anti-environmentalist and (egad) even an attorney. None of this bothers me. I don't believe I've ever claimed to have any special knowledge in any posts that would relate to stock discussion. If I have, I disclaim it as being quite foolish. Unlike others, I'm not afraid of making mistakes or admitting to them.
I.e., I've never said, "believe me as I am an SEC consultant," or "believe me because I am a lawyer." I've been on SI for many years, so I may have in the early days or I may have PM'd someone that I had a particular thought that may have related to my experience in real life but I disavow any of that as it is at best disingenuous. I can't prove that I am (yikes) a lawyer and I can't prove that I'm not a lawyer or anything else I've been accused of being. I'm not ashamed of what I am but I can't prove it one way or another and, again, it has no value in an online discussion.
Anyone who posts that his opinion is better (or worse LOL) just because he is a lawyer is doing himself and the issue he espouses a disservice. I do believe that posts should be judged by the content of the particular post and not by what someone professes that he is, whether that be "crusader," paid basher, unpaid basher, doer of good, exposer of scams, tout, engineer, pumper or even (oh oh) a lawyer. A post by someone claiming to be a lawyer is clearly not, ipso facto lol, made any better (or worse) by that assertion.
You're not stupid and I did think you had some objectivity. I don't think you can look at the "research department's" approach and call it anything other than a personal attack, one that totally annihilates its credibility and at odds with your own professed goals of defending freedom of internet anonymous speech. Your disagreement or categorization of me or my posts does not change any of this. Two wrongs don't make a right, assuming I am wrong in my own approach.
As to the question of whether merely posting makes one a "promoter" as that term is used in discussion of SEC regs and stocks, I agree with your response, but you didn't answer my question. Again, that's your right, but let's just call it what it is.
As to your response, (which wasn't an answer to the question)I have no problems with negative information. I also believe that any stock can be bashed or pumped, particularly penny stocks. I think that the use of generic information, boilerplate, innuendo to attack a company is easy in the penny area and that any company at this stage can be bashed. That's why I often ask bashers to give me a name of a few microcaps with which we can perhaps compare "good" vs. "bad," both as to company and share price performance. Typically bashers retreat from this request. I do this not to bash for bashing sake, but to show that, in fact, any company can be bashed.
My own goals are to find companies that have more open activities, that are more responsive in dealing with shareholders and to often actually be proactive in convincing CEO's of the value of enhancing a company's shareholder base with shareholder friendly actions. I've been active in a couple of recently opened boards here that are starting to do this. Rather than just sit back and bash, I've tried to do something pro-actively to change the environment.
I have often posted that I dislike the many "to the moon tomorrow" pumper type posts, as well as the moronic generic "it's a scam," type posts. Both of us realize that there is a huge community of traders, particularly on Ihub, that primarily do TA on their penny plays. I don't use that approach and find the posts that are typically 100% bullish "to the moon" as less than useful, other than perhaps to get a sense of where the market is going, a sort of "perverted" TA. I do understand that you are saying that often they are attempts to protect one's investment. I don't do it and my own investment posts are based on my own DD, as good or bad as that may be. Sometimes I don't have the time to do as much DD as I might otherwise wish. In that case, I may give an opinion, but my often too verbose posts are not typically one liner "long and strong" or "too the moon" tpe posts. Many people don't like my style and my posts and they may skip them, ignore them, or even pretend to ignore them LOL.
Over the years, I've learned from my TA friends and may even graduate one day into believing that TA can be used with respect to microcaps and penny stocks without the need of underlying DD. I haven't gotten there yet. I'm still debating the issues and educating myself. If I did nothing buy TA, I might be less verbose in my posts. I don't think I can just say "to the moon tomorrow," but I would post my opinion perhaps that my chart makes it look like it's a candidate for being a double of a multi bagger. I don't see anything wrong with that and I would think anyone but a total dolt would realize that my post is because I am long the stock. After all, why would someone spend all day on message boards posting about stocks unless he had an interest in the stock, whether that be as a long, a short, or even someone wishing that the stock price tank so that he might be able to buy in lower. One has to assume that is the case I believe. It's the only thing that makes sense. Sure there are a few of us who post because we think something is "right" or "wrong," but, in general, it's a matter of providing your own opinion and hopefully convincing others of the merits of your argument.
If you did follow my posts, you would see many posts, even about this company, where I expressed my own negative opinion with respect to management actions.
It's typically about degree. A missed deadline does not necessarily make something a scam. Although I often rail against dilution, others have pointed out to me that perhaps there is a valid reason. As you cite the "long and strong" people, what about those on the other side of the fence who claim a "missed deadline" means someone is a crook? (not a question that really needs an answer. You probably get my point.)
As for my last 2 questions, to the extent you answered, I think we agree.
Not that it matters and I can't prove it, but I've never posted something that I knew was incorrect in recommending positively or negatively on a stock. I do a lot of DD and I base my own decisions on this. I always try to remember to tell others to "do your own DD," which should be obvious I would think, as my DD is no better or worse than anyone else's and I don't put myself out as a "research department."
Finally, I do get involved in flame wars, admittedly not the greatest of personal traits. However, to the extent that it is material here, if I were to recommend that a stock is a scam because someone I've had a flame war with has posted favorably on that stock, I'd say my credibility with respect to that particular post was not high. Unfortunately, I have done that and would admit to the fact. Others, who are less willing to admit to their own lack of credibility can't seem to do this although it has to be quite obvious. And again, I'm not the source of research used by an entire board to bash or pump a stock.
Thanks again.
-rrufff |
