Hmmmm... Wasn't aware I was trying to imply a "cozy" relationship with the SI folks. That is not how I'd describe the relationship. More like nodding acquaintances who're located relatively close. I'm confident that if I ever violated the ToU, I'd get booted out of here just as quickly as anyone else.
As for his point that only shareholders can offer anything of merit to a thread, that is a blatantly false statement.
When I go to a thread, what I'm initially looking for is two things:
1. Who are the shareholders and why are they?
2. Who isn't a shareholder and why not?
It stands to reason that shareholders will have a more positive outlook on a company. That's why they're shareholders. It's important, though, to find out why others aren't shareholders. One-sided information is useless. Both sides must be presented.
And when the most vocal shareholders are unable to present *facts* about a company, and choose to, instead, attack the non-shareholders, it's an important red flag.
As little as Pugs cares what I think, I care even less what he thinks. But I do care very much what he tries to make others believe. And I also care quite a bit when it becomes evident that lying is one of the tools he uses.
BTW, I think Pugs knows I was a shareholder in TVSI at one time. I bought a small pre-DD position on Friday, hoping RMIL lightning wouldn't strike twice. When this stock started looking too much like RMIL, I bailed. I got rid of 1/3 of my shares when it looked like the Riley/Pugs hype machine was in high gear on it, then the rest a few days later when it became obvious that the company itself is likely part of the game. |
