OT Scumbria, RE: "I had exactly one line of my words in the post. "
I find your deliberate attempt to attack individuals (which your approach is), is counter to my desire for their opinions.
I am an INTC investor, you are not.
I want to hear their opinion, you don't need to.
You are destructively deterring folks from stating their opinion, as evident by a complete decrease in opinions on the stock's outlook, ever since you started making fun of people that formerly did this.
I find that destructive.
Of course, you don't find it destructive because you'll claim that you are only showing the truth. But let's be *really* honest here. Who doesn't already know the reputation of each of the individual investors and where the strengths and weaknesses are? It appears your intentions are less than constructively truthful, but rather destructive, and if you don't think so, let me point out that:
As a collective body, we provide a powerful combination of information and opinion than as individuals. Your approach is destructive to this powerful release of collective opinion to which my analysis on my INTC investment is functionally dependent upon.
Let's be specific, though...
Who doesn't know, for example, that John Fowler has an excellent ability to comment upon the gas prices vs consumer spending, which has great value to the thread, and thus to my investments. Who doesn't know that Paul provides the foundation for the products, knowledge, and the vision? Who doesn't know that Tejek provides the psychology insight of the markets? Who doesn't know that Mary provides the market vision? Who doesn't know that GV provides the excellent analytical number analysis and counter opinion? Who doesn't know that Tony provides the strength on the Server? Who doesn't know that Burt provides great analysis from the income stt & balance sheet? Who doesn't know that Duke locates these press releases that need to be read? Who doesn't know that Elmer provides the strength on cov calls? Or, BobK on analysts? Or, Watsonyouth on processing? Or, Windsock on biz issues? Or, Rudedog on OEMs and systems? Or, Fingfolfen on technology? Or, Albert on research reports? Or, Kapkan on momentum? Or, Kash on spotting technical business trends? Or, Dan3 on specifics and details? Or, Ten on technology? Or, McMannis on futuristic calls? Or, Ibexx on WS & analysts? Or, Semieng on processing? Or, Yaacov on economic predictions? Or, Joseph on Compaq? Or, Jozef's counter points? Or, Willcousa on how to make a downturn work to your advantage? Or, Diamond Jim on commentary? Or, Gottfried on excellent data and charts? Or, so many of the other important people that contribute to this thread, that make it a collective powerful source of information and reasoning.
So, anytime you make a destructive comment against anyone of them, whether AMD or INTC poster, that you claim is helpful and truthful but is actually attacking, you have the net effect of discouraging any one of these valuable posters, that as a collective whole provide tremendous value to the Thread.
I find their contributions infinitely more valuable than your currently destructive posts. You've changed your style, you used to provide great quality insight and counter points.
Your current posts are having the uninfortunate consequence of restricting people's opinions, as evident by a decline in folks stating their opinions (since you started using this destructive style).
The purpose of my post is to counter this potential negative effect you are having on fellow posters, by commenting on people's strengths.
Scumbria, you won't get far if you focus on people's weak spots, if your intention is to constructively promote information and participation. A team (which is what we essentially are here) functions best when everyone is encouraged to do what they do best. If you poke at Person A who has weakness W but strength S, you could lose the S. This becomes our loss, not yours. So, please find a more constructive way to illustrate your point - a way which gets the message across, but doesn't lose the participant or their contribution, which as a collective whole has more value than your currently destructive posts.
If you want to make a point, post the date, the stock price, the comment, but exclude the poster's name and exclude the link (we'll trust you it's real). That would be a more constructive approach.
Their collective contribution is more important to my analysis on my investment than your attacks on them.
Regards,
Amy J |
