Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : HITSGALORE.COM (HITT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BORIS BADENUFF who wrote (4607)	10/30/1999 3:51:00 PM
From: Level Head	Respond to of 7056

An Adhominem argument is defined as one that is directed at destroying the validity of a proposition, product, technology or service by attacking a person's character rather than addressing the rational flaws in the company's product or technology. He's elaborated somewhat on the definition of ad hominem (literally, "to the man"). It's useful to remember that the character of the officers is indeed a point of interest, both to the government and the public. An ad hominem argument attacks a person rather than the topic -- but the topic may still be character. It is a technique of misdirection, and is similar to the patter of magicians. For example: statement: "I have years of background of running successful companies." response: "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny." This response is certainly an ad hominem argument. But, the response: "The records indicate that you were fined for your role in those companies", while it attacks the person's character, is NOT ad hominem because it very much addresses the point. The most common ad hominem argument that I see is on these boards, to wit: "This evidence suggests a problem with the company." "Why don't you get a life?" This response is (rather transaparently) intended to focus attention on the reporter, not at the facts reported. Level Head

To: BORIS BADENUFF who wrote (4607)	10/30/1999 4:05:00 PM
From: Level Head	Respond to of 7056

For example, a CEO might be attacked because one of his or her shareholders had been involved in an unrelated shady deal ten years ago; thus, by implication, the reader takes away the idea that the CEO might be dishonest also. I agree that this is inappropriate. Let's see how well it applies to HitsGalore.com. Key elements: 1. the person attacked is NOT the one involved in the "shady deal" 2. the person involved is, by implication above, ONLY a shareholder 3. the "shady deal" is unrelated to the present enterprise 4. the timeframe of "ten years ago" implies long enough time to be of no consequence, and 5. the relationships of the CEO are not important. Let's look at Dorian Reed, as it seems from your HITT reference and posting here that you were thinking about him: Point 1 does not apply; the focus of attention is Reed himself, not the CEO. Point 2 isn't relevant, as Reed is obviously not "just a shareholder", but is in fact the majority owner of the company with a large role in its day-to-day affairs. The "unrelated" aspect of Point 3 seems wrong as well. Dorian's previous enterprises were Internet businesses of a nature that at least overlaps with the current one; one was even called "ReportsGalore.com". Point 4's timeframes are much closer than "ten years ago", and in some cases merely months. Point 5 is interesting, and I personally have mixed feelings about this. In the absense of other contributing factors, an isolated relationship with a "bad guy" is not necessarily damning in my opinion. Level Head

To: BORIS BADENUFF who wrote (4607)	10/30/1999 4:38:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7056

Gee, Boris, you'd really think that someone with the esteemed Dr Geist's credentials would realize that "ad hominem" (or, as the case may be, "ad feminam") isn't one word. Snicker. For example, a CEO might be attacked because one of his or her shareholders had been involved in an unrelated shady deal ten years ago; thus, by implication, the reader takes away the idea that the CEO might be dishonest also. What utter BS. I've never seen anyone say anything that stupid. Rather obviously, most large companies are likely to have shareholders who've been in trouble. Note also that most large (and small) companies have no idea who their shareholders are, given that most people's accounts are held in street name. If you were attempting to refer all this to HITT, well, sorry. Ain't anonymous shareholders who've had teeny tiny problems with the law. It's Dorian, founder and majority shareholder at 60%. Got nailed twice for fraud, didn't he? Spent 10 months at Club Fed the first time round, but did that stop him? Nah... But hey, Boris: let's talk about "psychology". The illustrious Dr Geist had his head handed to him by Asensio over SolvEx. The illustrious Dr Geist has a stockpicking track record almost as bad as your own. Do these two facts suggest to you why the illustrious Dr Geist just may feel extremely resentful (as you, do, Boris) of the people who were right about the stocks he was so very wrong about? lolol, of course!!