| | | Here there's a pretense of civility, but only if you're a basher and hater. Say something positive, and it's fair game to attack. I think the pendulum swings back and forth on tolerance of positive vs. negative. Right now the stock price is low and (as far as Wall Street is concerned) company management appears not to have a great handle on the situation. Under such circumstances, frustration toward management and negativity about the company can come out of the woodwork. We're at that stage now.
But back when the company seemingly had plenty of working capital and was claiming to be able to get one or more drugs into human trials, people voicing frustration with the lack of visible progress towards human trials were similarly assailed.
I do understand the attacks from both sides, although I generally don't agree with them. There appears to be a certain contingency that want to either hold fast to their dream(s) or vindicate their frustrations, and they feel that defending their opinion (whether with logic, rhetoric, or troll-like behavior) will help that come to pass. Then there are others that want to respond in kind to the attacker, which is often justified but seldom helpful.
I must admit that I'm not immune from this behavior. I occasionally want to hammer a troll back into his hole when I feel the attack has become too personal, just like much of the rest of the board.
I try to remember that people are going to have emotions about this company, its mission and its management. Often those emotions carry over into people who post with opposing views. I'd prefer for all of us, as much as possible, to downplay the personal attacks and address the rational thoughts. Ask rational and insightful questions and respond, even in a spirited way, with rational responses to opposing views. Let's all confine our attacks to the logic and not the authors.
I think we all get smarter and stay more civil that way. |
|
