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.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mmmary who wrote (2798)	4/19/2002 5:24:45 PM
From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Yes, IHUB does take shares for promotion on ihub It doesn't, and you know that. Yet you persist in telling this very blatant lie. Blatant not only because it's patently false, but because you personally know it to be. Matt was paid for advertising space with stock a long time ago, but that's it. Had you said "iHub took shares in lieu of cash from a tout who wanted ad space. I don't like it and it casts a shadow on their credibility.", I would've agreed with you. Your statement, as written, is a lie. Made worse by the fact that you know it's a lie. We get money two ways: Subscriptions and Advertising. "Promotion" isn't a heading on the income statement. Members buy subscriptions, and I farm out all advertising to 3 reputable advertising agencies. They still enforce the TOU discriminately. Of course, I'll disagree with you, but will concede that this point is arguable and any evaluation of it is going to be subjective. I actually stepped into the fray (well, caused a fray) a few nights ago because I thought I was seeing inappropriate handling of the rules. It turned out I was wrong. I didn't have the whole picture. Stock promoters are even allowed to advertise on the site. Yeah? If so, it's happening under my nose but without my knowledge. Got links? Same as here, anyone is welcome to include just about anything they want in a thread's header. Anthony promotes his site via his profile and thread header. His site is used to promote his position (doesn't matter that it's short vs long -- a position's a position). Does that make Anthony an evil promoter and SI just as evil for allowing it? I don't think so. Bob's partner Matt takes* shares from promoters to aid the promotion of total stock scams on the site.* Replace "takes" with "took a long time ago" and "aid the promotion of total stock scams" with "in lieu of cash for banner ads to his (scummy) site." and you've got a correct statement. As it stands, false again. Keep in mind we're talking a stock that wasn't being "promoted". IMO, it was stock the guy owned and knew to be worthless and he pawned them off on Matt and got a heckuva deal in the process. Bob knows this. Correct. I do know it. Would it have happened on my watch? Nope. Did it happen because Matt was younger, more foolish, and harder up for funds to keep the site going? Yep. And he'd agree. Did it happen because Matt wanted to be compensated under the table so he could gain from a promotion of the stock he was given? Nope. The stock was for some obscure (currently worthless) company and was just viewed by him as an alternative to cash. I have no issue with his reasons or the ethics aside from knowing (as he does now) that securities can't be accepted as payment from anyone because of the perception that gives rise to. TOU discriminately to get rid of negative posters. Yeah, that WillyWizard sure was a heckuva basher, eh? <g> The promoters actually band together on ihub and threaten to leave if certain posters aren't tos'd. Really? Let them. Es macht es nicht. Were we to pay attention to such "threats", we'd have a good topic to discuss. That's the quickest way to get me to show someone the exit. Threatening to use it. "It's right there. Careful, lest the mean backswing on it nail ya." Promoters and touts can "band together" all they want. Their threatening to leave doesn't make me want to keep them. It just pisses me off at their temerity, and makes me hopeful they'll follow through. That happened quite a bit on SI, but that was before your time. My "Fine. Leave." attitude is precisely why RB is now a large site. I still have that attitude. Heck, even if you assume I don't have an altruistic bone in my body, they wouldn't hold sway with me. They typically don't put a dime in the coffers. Who does? Folks like the AIM group and Myst's group. If those folks threaten to leave, I'll pay attention. They're good people and they support the site. Promoters? Nah. They don't help the coffers and subtract from them by what they do to our reputation. He obviously approves of it as he allowed it. See, you know full well the chronology involved here, so your statement isn't a mistake; it's a lie. Plain and simple. Here's the order: 1. Matt takes shares in some company from one member in return for banner ads, figuring he could sell them for the amount of cash the member owed him for ads. 2. Matt decides it's a mistake and since the member wasn't holding up his end of the ad agreement, cancels the ads. 3. Bob shows up. 4. Bob finds out about the "agreement" and the hassling Matt's getting over it. 5. Bob says "If he thinks we owe him a block of ads even though he's never paid for them, but will quit hounding the admin if he gets the ads, then I'll roll the ads and burn through them fast." 6. Bob puts the ads in even though we were under no obligation to do so, but because it is a way to quickly and easily defuse this guy's "You owe me" stuff. 7. In a matter of days, the whole block of ads is delivered and Bob tells the advertiser that the agreement is terminated and that though he owes Investors Hub a very substantial amount of money, we don't want it and will not enter into any other agreements with him at any price. If I were truly the "paid whore" Anthony claims I am, I would've certainly taken the money that was owed to me (enough to pay the bills for several months), but I'd rather keep self-funding the site than have any of its bills paid with money that's so dirty I wouldn't want to be within a mile of it. "He allows it" is patently false. It didn't happen under my watch and wouldn't have. Period. Not that I think the general concept of bartering in lieu of cash is wrong. Just that it's not "right" when there's a market-neutral message board involved. We've had this discussion before, where I pointed out conclusively that your statements were not only wrong, they were lies. I'm happy to chat with you and even argue with you, but when you lie about me and do it in such specific terms, it's disappointing to say the least. And, as I've said before, it makes me personally wonder about the factuality of any other "facts" you've presented. Some of them I know full well are true. Some I know full well are lies. As such, the ones I haven't personally verified I can't consider true. Oh, and no matter how many times you repeat the lie, it doesn't become true. Granted, more people will believe it (which I believe is your intent), but they're still lies.