Interesting post, and thanks for writing it.
I have a few thoughts. First, the Terra Nova thing you mentioned in Ohio is not that big a deal. They got spanked for doing a handful of trades in that state without being registered. I'll have to be real honest with you and tell you that that stuff happens every day at every big firm. All it takes is some broker who is not registered in a state to do a transaction for a client in that state - anything like that qualifies as the same sort of illegality. I'm not trying to lessen the offense, they screwed up, but if that's the worst thing that Terra Nova has ever done, they are the cleanest securities firm in the history of the world.
Secondly, I don't read many of the posts on SI, and I don't follow the history of many people. I appreciate your comments because I wasn't aware of a lot of what you said.
Thirdly, your suggestion that the Hot Lists might be being manipulated is quite interesting. I can honestly say that I didn't notice it, and could not have imagined that what you suggest might be true before I read your piece. I know for a fact that this thread got bumped off the list for "no reason" and then bumped back on, but I have no idea why or how it happened.
Back before GNET bought SI, the Hot List was simply a function that Brad and Jeff invented to keep the members on top of the action on the site. If it's been perverted into some kind of marketing/revenue tool, it would be a real shame.
Which brings me to what I think is the underlying situation here: the way the site is run and what appears on it. James Cramer's recent piece is illustrative of the underlying problem. Conversely, the fact is, and remains, that this site, like all other sites, has rules that are set by the owners of the site. In the case of deciding what posts stay and what posts are deleted, it pretty much comes down to a subjective judgement call in many cases. SI doesn't screen or pre-approve anything. They have rules. If somebody at SI who has the job of deleting posts that are deemed to violate the Terms of Use, then as far as I personally am concerned, that's the end of the argument. The people that own the site make the call.
Over the years, I've gotten into fights with several people who screamed about their "rights of free speech" being violated. In every single case, I was not objecting to their "rights of free speech" but to their imagined right to cause trouble. Have I myself caused trouble? Yes, indeed. I've attacked paid touts, criminals, lunatics, and spammers, all of which were very clearly violating the Terms of Use of the site. I've been accused of being a "paid shorter", an employee of SI (LOL!) and all kinds of other things.
Why do I cause trouble? Let's take the current scenario. I started a parody thread to expose the stupid stock picking calls and insane technical analysis of someone who clearly has little idea about actual investing in the actual stock market. Is it a "personal attack"? By my definition, it is not. For the most part, I've "attacked" ideas, opinions, and judgements made by somebody that I did not agree with. I've never mentioned this publicly, but I have never flamed anyone with a sense of humor, and if I made a mistake with a flame, I apologized publicly immediately. I have asked many times for posts of mine to be removed from the site if I later felt they were a mistake. To me, there is a huge difference between me posting a link to some totally whacky call by Barb Simon, and Barb Simon sending me a PM that says
"what a sorry reject you are... you are posting for 2 years on nothing but stalking and looking like a fool.... Hope your mental health facility will increase your medication .... LOSER!"
Does it matter that Barb Simon can't read a chart and throws out stupid lame ideas about trades and Technical Analysis? That she posts childish idiotic flames and attacks me if I criticize her? Yes and no. I know I'm right, so her grade-school love notes don't bother me. It makes me laugh when she tells people to buy at a top and sell at a bottom. It makes me laugh to see her "selective memory" about her picks. It makes me laugh when she makes 5 or 6 absolutely terrible calls in one day and then says she had a great day. It cracks me up when she suggests I'm on medication. I know how to read charts, and I know she doesn't have a clue.
But, have I ever publicly called her a "loser" or made any reference to her personally at all? No, and I never will. She's a human being, just like the rest of the human beings. I don't object to her as a human being, what I object to is the hidden ulterior motive that I see. I see it. I see it very, very clearly. She's not the only "guru" on this site, but anyone who can read can see who is being parodied on this thread. People are looking at the bilge she types and believing it, and that does bother me, not because of her, but because of the poor people that trust her.
So, is there some illegal hanky panky going on as you have suggested? I have no idea. Frankly, I don't particularly care, because the people that own the site make the rules. If there is some criminal carp happening, all I know for sure is that I'm not a part of it. I also know that eventually, criminals get caught - it's only a matter of time. So I don't really care. I know that if I were her partner and she posted the stuff she posted on SI, I would have cut her loose in less than 24 hours on general principles. But hey, I don't know what the business arrangement is. And I don't care.
What I do care about is the people on this site. I've met a lot of really good people on this site. I've been exposed to a lot of ideas that I would never in my life have been exposed to if it were not for this site.
The unfortunate part about it is that this site is not what it used to be. It's the best of its kind on the Internet, IMHO, but it ain't even close to what it used to be. I wish it were, but it ain't, and until somebody comes up with something better, I hang out here, and I have fun.
Fun. That's what it's all about for me. Not a day in the last 50 years has gone by when I didn't laugh. I'll bet Jenna can't say the same. |
