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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The DD Maven -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shortsinthesand who wrote (596)	2/5/2009 7:57:41 AM
From: rrufff	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 736

I don't think your post here will be removed. If what you say is true, it is something that should not happen. I know I was removed on the AURC board a couple of years ago because of complaints by the assistant moderator in that I would not cooperate in removing posts that were negative. Despite this, I was accused of being a pumper by those on your side of the street who are quick to jump on the name-calling band-wagon. I imagine there are some that still think I was removed because I was removing negative posts, for that reason alone, when, in fact, I was refusing to do so, and, in fact, restored negative posts that had been removed by the "assistant," who was later named as my replacement, in "coup" fashion LOL. I woke up one day and saw that I had been removed as moderator. I don't know the back story and administration may have had some perfectly good reason to do it. I didn't get into it as I quite frankly don't have the time to spend on any one stock, either from the positive side or the negative side, diversification being the key that I always stress. Points to be made: 1. Moderators should not be replaced if they have followed rules re TOU. It is a thankless job and so many are quick to accuse. Despite the accusations, I do believe that on most boards, there are very few deletions based strictly on opinion of a stock. The deletions are typically personal attacks, off-topic crap and spam. 2. Many of us are so quick to accuse others, to generalize, to claim "freedom of expression," but then we so quickly try to censor or attack when others, with whom we disagree, are given that same freedom of expression. Personally, I've been attacked for expressing my opinion on controversial issues such as naked shorting, manipulation by hedge funds and MM's, as well as giving the results of my own DD on message boards. This type of activity is intended to intimidate and stop others from expressing their opinions. Ironically, it often comes from those who profess to be for full disclosure and "freedom of posting commentary." To that extent, it becomes advocacy of "freedom for me, not for you."

To: shortsinthesand who wrote (596)	2/5/2009 8:05:24 AM
From: rrufff	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 736

re SGLS - I don't profess to know anything about it other than what I put together from a quick perusal of the last filing and a quick look at the board. From that, my opinion of "scam" was quickly formed. What I don't understand is the effort to portray LBWR as a scam while there is less of an effort on SGLS and, in fact, I saw one poster posting positively on it, who was quickly jumping on the bandwagon with respect to LBWR being a scam. I'm not defending LBWR here and have expressed myself objectively (both positively and negatively) on this site with respect to the mistakes made by LBWR, but the volume is minimal and seems to pale in comparison to a stock such as SGLS, on an objective "scam meter." Again, I'll repeat, as some like to take my posts out of context. I'm not attacking those who are critical of LBWR or even their arguments, just wondering why it receives more attention than the MOMO scams that seem to be so pervasive on the pink sheets, and which attract so much attention on IHub.