dt:
>Has this company increased shareholders value?
They are trying, but you must realize this is not the same economic climate for Jrs. prior to BRE-X.
>Is resorting immediately to legal means to stifle a critic's voice increasing shareholders value?
You must be kidding. I would hardly use the word "immediately" here.
>Any company that makes it their business to monitor chat groups
They all monitor chat groups, especially this one because it is such a significant forum. Did you know that SI holds the number one market position for financial discussion? More than 70% of all financial discussion on the Internet over the last three years was on SI. It is one of the most trafficked Web sites in the personal finance category.
>...can most likely find an incident similar to this, where a person >like John, is outspoken and less diplomatic in expressing negative >opinions about the company.
So you are saying he should be free to call Dennis and the Sceptre fund manager SENILE? ..or refer to company employees as "whores" or "thieves" on a public forum? Privately, I could care less what he calls me or anyone else, and I'm as guilty as the next guy for calling people nasty names under those conditions, but this is a very highly visible public forum. When he casts key company people in the light he has been, he attacks all shareholders, me included.
>If you condone companies taking immediate legal means to protect >attacks by posters, then SI and other chat groups will
>just consist of a bunch of dreamy eyed investors, in perpetual >denial, forever supporting management, to the point where the stock >price sinks to zero.
Doubt it. Instead, all the crap posted by the increasing number of shorters appearing on SI who are spreading half-truths mixed with lies will find themselves in a bind as they get sued, and the ratio of crap to useful info will go up immensely.
>People like John is good for chat groups. They strip away your rose colored glasses!
John has at times in the past done a very good job of presenting useful information both good and bad. At times I have admired some of his insights, but the libel he is now performing on an on-going basis is not acceptible and only serves to support the efforts of those who are shorting or flipping the stock. Attacking the company based on facts is one thing...spreading vicious lies is another regardless of how you choose to perceive this.
>It is a bit naive to think that taking legal means to stifle a critic >is protecting the share value of a stock. Share value comes from >management's actions in managing and growing the business >competently.
For the business to grow the image has to be positive. Part of the mandate for management is to ensure public information (which will assist with growth) does NOT consist of libelous statements.
>There is a fine line between libel and expressing an opinion.
Only if you choose to place that line there. The legal definition is quite clear....writing lies that damage reputations. PERIOD.
>You fans here are missing the big picture! You're just concerned over >your penny stock holding. For a few lousy bucks in perhaps a poor >choice of investment, you are quick to defend a company that is >threatening a core principle in a democratic country, and that
>is, TO EXPRESS OPINIONS FREELY.
Excuse me, but our great democratic countries have laws that need to be abided by to avoid KAOS. If I set up a website today listing your name, programmed 5 major search engines to find it by anyone typing your name as search criteria, loaded the site with libelous statements and then told you I did this would you feel OK about it?
..and ..."for a few lousy bucks?" You obviously have NO CLUE about how many shares some of the people reading this forum have.
>Already a few people here have decided to leave this thread because >they view the company as trigger happy in resorting to legal
>means to stop their critics.
The BIG shareholders are holding because they are thinking with their brains. The ones who are leaving probably should cause they have no shares in the first place.
>If John is making potentialy libelous comments, an email to him >warning him would stop him.
John would probably laugh at it and then post it anyway.
>Unfortunately, the manner in which the company took action to stifle >John has infringed on the principle of freedom of speech.
Bull. You have missed the point completely and I think you should talk to a lawyer or do some reading to realize that freedom of speech does not include the right to libel. |
