First, I would like to start out by saying, that I have been an attorney at law, for the last 8 years, and as of may of this year, I began following Energy Drilling Ind. Inc.. I do invest a small portion of my portfolio into penny stocks. I search investment threads, and then if I see a company that looks promising, I research it more on my own, and if I like the fundamentals of the company, I will invest in it. What originally led me to EDII, was some excellent DD by some of the members here on SI, being Ken M, Jim B, and some others. Now I will admit, that I never joined SI, feeling that I would not need to make any posts myself, and would just follow leads provided by the members, and since a membership only gives you the ability to post messages, I did not bother getting one, I took the lazy way and followed the trails left by some of your since departed members. At first there was a wealth of information provided on EDII, and then it appears some individuals showed up, and began posting very negative messages, under questionable motives, but still Information was able to get through, so I continued to monitor the thread. Late last night, as I was doing some personal business, I happened to be present on the thread, when some exchanges were going on between, I would characterize it as members with the best interest of the company at heart, and others who have no position with the company, took place. After reading all that was posted, and finding out that several members memberships were terminated, I felt compelled to sign up for the trial membership, and post what I believe to be collusion in the worse possible way. First, I will bring up Ms. Shill's and SI's errounious interpretation of invasion of privacy, in this post by Ms. Shell
First: she went to no "lengths" at all. As I believe I've explained, the odious Bruce, CSHK long, sent me email suggesting that we exchange information. He would, he claimed, be away from his computer for a few days, so could he please have my address and phone number? Idiot that I was, I furnished both. And that was when the hang-up calls started
In this post by you, you clearly state that you gave your address and phone number, to a total stranger, and yes any resaonable and prudent person, would refer to someone who, they only know from exchanges on a computer to be a stranger. Upon doing this, you gave all expectations of privacy to that particular information away. The courts are very clear on this issue, that the standard in which this is looked at, is would a reasonable and prudent individual, expect information that they themselves give to a stranger, remain private, and time and time again, the answer that juries have come up with is no. Had this person hacked into a computer and retrieved it, or had you given that info over a secure line, and someone then in turn given this person that info, then yes, you would have a case for invasion of privacy, but for this person to simply post information that was sent to him, that originated from you in the first place, to be banned for violation of invasion of privacy, is Not only wrong, but does clearly send a signal that SI and Ms. Shell is indeed involved in collusion. Second, it was stated that this Mr. Ken M was acting in a malicious manner, yet the posts do not support this claim, I believe if I read Ms. Colleen's post correctly, it appears that Mr. Ken M has had Ms. shell's information for several days, yet chose not to post it while under the assumption that is was indeed Ms. Shell's home info, and indeed only upon being told that is a business location, which was involved in manipulation of EDII stock, did he post this information. If this is true, it would indeed show that had Mr. Ken M been malicious toward Ms. Shell it seems reasonable that he would have posted Ms. Shells information when he first received it, and not several days later.
Third, after reading the terms of service agreement:
You agree not to use the service for illegal purposes or for the transmission of material that is unlawful, harassing, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, tortious, improper or otherwise objectionable, or that infringes or may infringe the intellectual property or other rights of another.
I find that invasion of privacy, does not show to be a more severe violation of rules than, the transmission of harassing, libelous, abusive, harmful, tortious, improper or otherwise objectionable material, yet apparently SI does. A case could be made that Ms. Shell, and several of her friends, in the last week has reapply broke these rules, and by the mere presence of Ms. Shell still posting and several members from the EDII post not, goes a long way in showing that Ms. Shell, and several of her friends have a special status on SI, and that the terms of service apply to all but themselves.
One example, and there are several, in which miss Shell calls Mr. Ken M a "creep", is clearly a violation of the terms of service rule against transmitting abusive material, yet it appears that rule is for everyone but Mrs. Shell and her friends.
I would like to also point out, that a Mr. Bob from SI Admin., did publish two posts this morning, in which on the second post, he made two statements, in which I am deeply disturbed over one of those statements. In the second post, which he has since erased, he stated that"maybe people are upset with Janice because she is telling the truth". I am really disturbed by that statement for several reasons, again it shows that collusion is going on between the two, it also shows that a SI administrator is not staying impartial. But worse it seems that Bob with SI is stating that when Ms. Shell posts very negative information about EDII, bob is stating he agrees, and I am sure there are a lot of members of SI, that did not spend $200.00 of their money to have an administrator of SI post derogatory and I might add unfounded information about a company they have money invested in. The next statement he had was he poor defense of the allegation of collusion with SI and Ms. Shell. He stated that there was no collusion involved with SI and Ms. Shell. He further stated that Ms. Shell had been suspended in the past (now I believe, that is a clear example of invasion of privacy, to post on an open thread, information on punishments given to members, it is not shown in the terms of service, that information about any punishments given out, shall be published). Now Ms. Shell may have been suspended in the past, but I believe it would be safe to say, that the suspension did not occur after Ms. Shell gave SI thousands of dollars in free publicity on the Wall Street Journal. It is no surprise that Ms. Shell and associates seem to enjoy a sort of Carte Blanche on SI, and it does appear for good reason. But what I find to be unconscionable, is the gloating going on by Ms. Shells supporters, in there posts, and another clear example of collusion, that they would actually gloat about the termination of opposing members to Ms. Shell on SI. I would like to see what punishments have been handed out to past members, in relation to the rules they may or may not have broken. I believe the termination of membership was extremely severe for simply posting public information on the thread in a non-vulgar, non-threatening manner. Had this not involved Ms. Shell, I am sure you would have seen no suspensions or termination's given out, at the worse, possibly a warning would have been given, and that would have been the end of it. No what SI did, was in no way punishment for a violation of their terms of service, but was an act of revenge, for upsetting SI's favorite girl. Is SI involved in some way with what Ms. Shell and her associates engage in, or is it just a case of looking out for one of their friends, I don't know. I do know this does reek of collusion with Janice Shell and SI Admi.
I for one will keep my 30 day free trial subscription, but I will not be sending SI any money, I also will be letting my friends in the investment world know what SI appears to be involved in. I had thought that Silicon Investor was a serious investment forum, in which legitimate investment Information was exchanged, yet I apparently was wrong, I see SI, as an immature, poorly run organization, that appears to be more interested in taking revenge out for their friends, than looking out for legitimate investors. My advise to the members terminated, is that they file suit in their local small claims court, asking for their member fee's to be returned. I believe that case law will support them should SI claim that they violated a members privacy. It costs very little, and SI officials will have to appear at all these hearings, to defend their actions. Once the Gestapo techniques of SI are shown, I feel you would all be entitled to your membership fee's. Also after filing your suits, fill out a motion of discovery directed at SI, to find out what punitive actions have been taken against other members in the past, and use that also to show collusion on SI's part. I believe the silencing of members that opposed Ms. Shell, by terminating them, shows a dangerous precedent, and something that my money will not be a part of. To the members terminated, you have my sympathies for what happened, and be advised their are other threads that do not act like Nazi Germany, in the way it treats its members. |
