Creede,
Most of us here understand that each and every one of us has our bias when we post. It is only logical that when someone posts on a stock message board, that person has a position in a stock and will have a bias that the stock price will go up and that he will likely be posting a positive opinion on a stock. It is also logical that when someone buys a stock, his intent is to eventually sell that stock at a profit. However, this is what we see attacked by worm blogs run by former NASD fined and suspended brokers as well as by self-styled "crusaders," who claim to be here to defend us, perhaps justifying even criminal behavior as a type of Batman, that their "ends justifies their means." They can assassinate character and speak in generalities about others because they believe that only their opinion is the one to which the reader should listen.
Although this is a private company and issues of freedom of posting opinions is subject to its control and rules, each of us has the right to post our opinion and to give reasons for such opinion, within the rules of this website.
A group of posters have been involved with SI for many years. These posters claim to post negative information about stocks because they are "good samaritans." They travel from board to board and post information, some of which may be relevant, some may be totally off the wall. They are often joined by newly born aliassses, seemingly with the intent of bashing one particular stock or group of stocks.
As a recent post here exhibits, the post often speaks in generalities, of "touts" and "promoters". The post is well written and intended to tell a reader here not to believe anything that is written by those with whom the author may disagree. This is why I often call this type of particular author an "internet hypocrite." This type of author often complains about being called a "basher" in general terms, yet he is very free with calling those, with whom he disagrees, "touts." As with that particular post, the author backs up his opinion, and he has every right to express the opinion, with no facts. Rather he expresses an opinion and asks you and others to believe him in an attempt to influence you. Again, I believe it is hypocritical to attack others for doing exactly what that particular author has done in his post here.
He has an opinion. He expresses it. Now, is his opinion more valid because he claims not to own stock in this company? First of all, one has to assume that there is no such thing as a "paid basher." This, admittedly, is a subject with much debate, on both sides. Those considered bashers will typically post, derisively, that there is no such thing and that it is a great myth. When confronted with names such as Elgindy, Jeff Thorpe, Goldfinger, or facts which came out in the trial of Elgindy and which are being alleged in the Overstock case and elsewhere, these people will say "no direct payment by a short seller." It sort of comes down to the Clinton approach, you remember, when he claimed that it all comes down to the definition of what "is" is. These people claim that getting direct benefits from an employer, associated trading, front-running and all does not make someone a "Paid Basher." I disagree and I believe common sense would require most others, without a predisposed bias towards bashers, to also disagree.
This same type of author is very quick to defend hedge funds, MM's and the securities industry whenever claims are made of illegal short selling, manipulative trading and the like. This type of author often has a history of activity that might seem hypocritical, such as running a penny stock website, or defending vehemently individuals convicted of extortion, manipulation of stocks and securities fraud.
What I am saying is what I always say and that is DO YOUR OWN DD. Decide for yourself if someone who posts, and often travels in packs, is here with an agenda. Ask yourself if the agenda is hypocritical when you read the post. Does the poster do, in essence, what he criticizes? Is he here to influence and yet be critical of others who post opinions, that may be influential.
This type of poster would give total freedom to those who support his point of view, but would require everyone, with whom he disagrees, to essentially say in each post "don't beleive me because I may have a bias," a bias that is inherent when one posts on a stock board. Most of us have things to do which are more "fun" than posting on message boards. It just doesn't seem logical for there to exist a group of 100's of "good samaritans" doing nothing but pointing out the errors of our ways and then, who defend industry scamming that seems to meet their agenda.
As I often state, it comes down to "my scam is ok, yours is not."
The rule should be, I believe, to read posts, form your own opinions, make your own decisions. The truth is rarely black and white. Creede, you have a negative opinion on this stock and I respect your opinion. I have many negative opinions on just about all the stocks I own from Exxon to SLJB. Any stock can be "bashed," just as any stock can be "pumped." This is just common sense and doesn't need a "crusader" to tell us the obvious, particularly when said "crusader" has his own bias, which is not disclosed in this post.
Again, I'm not being critical of you, so, please don't take it that way. I am critical of posts that claim opinion as fact, whether they are "takeover tomorrow" "going to the moon" or OTOH "total scam" "they are all lies" "they are all liars." I am also critical of those who would hypocritically attack other for merely posting an opinion. These people are often even more hypocritical by their doing both - they attack others for opining and they present their own opinions as facts.
Beware of those in glass houses who throw their words of stone. |
