Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
IHUB = Informative Harmoniously Understood BoardsPart 1
The Rules
This post is intended as an overview of the rules of engagement for participating on Investors Hub, or, more specifically, what to expect of me based on what some of you already know of me based on my role at Silicon Investor.
For the most part, there won't be any difference. For example, spam, threats, and invasion of privacy will continue to be dealt with swiftly and severely.
Spam
The definition of "spam" that we'll use here is: "Multiple posts of the same or essentially the same content." If someone spams the site, they could receive a warning or account termination, depending on the extent to which they did it. I have never been tolerant of spam, and never will be, as it's often a tool used by scamsters and subtracts dramatically from the value of a site to the community who uses it.
Generally speaking, two copies of a post is the limit, and one of those copies must be in a thread specific to the stock and the other can be in any other thread that isn't specific to a particular stock (like a "Trade of the day" type of thread). More than that, and it's spamming.
Advertising
Advertising and Spam are not the same thing, although ads are frequently spammed. A post being advertising doesn't necessarily make it spam, although advertising will be strictly limited as well.
Links to one's site in a thread header are acceptable if the purpose of the thread and header isn't strictly to advertise the site.
Links within posts are only acceptable if they're part of a non-advertising message and if the link is either in support of the (on-topic) content of the message itself, or if the link is included as part of one's signature line and is to the writer's homepage, provided the homepage isn't a paid site or a site with ads; essentially that the link isn't an attempt to make income by enticing users to visit it. Examples: If I sign off a post with "Bob Zumbrunnen, http://www.bobzumbrunnen.com", it's not advertising. If I discuss technical aspects of a stock's recent price activity and post a link *directly* to a graph illustrating what I'm talking about, it's not advertising. If I write a post asking readers to check out a newsletter I'm offering, it's advertising. If I do it more than once, it's also spam.
As far as your profile goes, anything goes, to a point. Feel free to use your profile to advertise another site as shamelessly as you want. All other parts of the Terms of Service apply, but if you want to put a blinking banner in your profile, go for it. If you're a good enough writer that people want to go to your profile to see your other posts, you deserve the hits you get.
Still pretty gray? I'll update with examples as needed.
Multiple threads per ticker
Effective immediately, there is no "one thread per ticker" rule. The number of threads associated with a particular stock needs to be kept within reason, but it'll be my job to ensure that it's kept reasonable. If you want a thread that discusses daytrading QCOM and the existing thread focuses more on LTB&H (Long Term Buy & Hold), feel free to start a daytrading thread about QCOM. If the QCOM thread is too bullish for your tastes and you don't feel welcome there, start a QCOM thread for the bearish perspective.
We do, however, want to keep it "within reason". It doesn't do anyone any good if all of the information relevant to QCOM is divided into a dozen threads. Thread dilution needs to be kept at a minimum. If QCOM issues a press release, don't create a new thread for it. Post it to an existing thread. And if there are 4 threads about QCOM, posting the same thing to all 4 threads would be considered spamming.
Exception: For OTCBB and Pink Sheet issues, the limit will remain at one board per ticker. This is subject to change in the future, but I want to see how it goes with Listed and Nasdaq issues first.
Personal Attacks
At Silicon Investor, quite a bit of ad hominem stuff was permitted. This aspect will be dramatically different here.
I want to hold our community here to a higher standard. And because of the Chairman of the Board concept, there should be less of a precedent problem, or situations where someone got away with calling someone else a moron earlier so it must be okay for everyone to do it.
Another thing that'll help is the existence of the "Parking Lot" thread. Want to tell someone what you really think of them? Go there. All the more reason for us to have much lower tolerance of that kind of stuff in the other threads.
Aside from the Parking Lot thread, no kinds of personal attacks will be permitted, whether they're directed at individuals or groups.
General Rudeness
This is something that wasn't addressed on Silicon Investor at all. It will be here.
Excluding vulgarity, personal attacks, threats, and invasions of privacy, members will be able to conduct their own non-stock threads in any manner they see fit. If your thread is not specific to a particular stock or group of stocks, feel free to post in any way you see fit.
For example, if you have such a thread and post "This stock is a POS and the CEO works part-time at my estate pulling dandelions with his teeth. If this turd ever pokes its ugly head above $5 again, I'm going to short it until you feel some serious pain.", that would be acceptable.
However, if you go to the thread that's specific to that stock and post the same thing, you're going to get a warning or suspension. If you want to post your negative opinion on the stock-specific thread, do so in a civil manner. For example, "This stock is a poor investment choice because the CEO's only prior experience is in lawn maintenance and I will see any rally as an opportunity to re-enter my short position."
On threads that are specific to stocks, civility is expected.
Warnings
On Silicon Investor, I gave suspensions far more often than I gave warnings. This was for a number of reasons:
1. Oftentimes, my warnings were met with very extreme personal attacks and threats against myself. Surprisingly, far less so than suspensions.
2. There was no easy mechanism for tracking warnings.
3. Warnings are very time-consuming compared to suspensions.
4. Having clicked "I Agree" on the Terms of Use was considered warning enough.
5. I was required to communicate a certain way with users; not in the style most comfortable to me.
On Investors Hub, I will continue my philosophy of my role being more "moderator" than "punisher", and further it. This includes giving warnings for all but the most blatant of violations. The availability of the Chairman of the Board concept to reduce my workload is the main reason I'll be able to do this, and when I communicate with members here, I'll be able to do so in the ways I see as appropriate.
So, if you get a warning, please just take it in the spirit intended and know that it wasn't a suspension.
Authored by Admin Bob
:=) Gary Swancey
The Other Side of SPAM
We hate getting those unwanted messages in our inbox. People have gone to great lengths to try and eliminate Spam. But is the Cure worse than the Disease?
It is easy to report Spam. Several websites exist that will automatically forward your complaint to the authorities (ISP's). They simplify the process to allow the nearly illiterate the ability to protect their email boxes from Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE or Spam). At first glance this looks like a good thing. Make it easy to catch Spammers and fine them (typically $200 per email sent) for abusing the system. However a deeper investigation reveals some problems. It seems that the services are not validating the reports before forwarding them to the ISP's. Additionally, there are no measures in place to prevent a report for a single "offense" being repeated. Considering the severity of the punishment handed down by many ISP's (instant termination, no questions asked) a potential for abuse exists.
Recently I was falsely accused of spamming. Fortunately I had all of the necessary information to prevent being shut down. But it took the better part of a week to get things fixed. Why? Because a single individual decided that an email was spam. That lone individual has access to websites that allow him to act as victim, judge, jury and executioner. He was able to blast his accusation to multiple locations, multiple times, and heretofore without fear of retribution. In essence he was allowed to spam my ISP, along with several others and because he was part of the Crusade to stop spam, his message was Gleefully forwarded without question. Were it not for a very good working relationship with my ISP. My site would likely have been terminated immediately.
There was only one little teeny tiny problem with the spam report. Seems the user forgot to mention he opted in to my list! That means he requested to be sent email! I take the spam issue very seriously. And make certain that I do everything possible to avoid sending an unwanted email. I have gone well beyond the legal requirements to protect myself from spurious complaints. Implementing these measures adds to the cost of doing business on the net. And remember the reason for these measures is to protect ourselves from false or invalid complaints. Thankfully these measures prevented a major catastrophe. All is once again well in my Internet kingdom.
As a result I am changing a policy on my website and am suggesting that other Business owners do the same.
Since the Anti-spam sites and most ISP's have a stated policy wherein they state a fine of $200 per spam email sent. I propose a similar fine for the false reporting of spam.
My suggested text is as follows:
Placed immediately following the "we don't use Spam section."
Filing false Spam reports are considered as bad as spamming itself. As such, for each false report the reporter and the services that forward the false report will be charged $200 or actual damages, whichever is higher.
In the above case my faux-reporter would be charged $1200, as would the firm that forwarded his message six times.
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Dave, I agree that this poster(s) did not come here to discuss or even remotely offer a solid opinion with an underlying basis. They refuse to offer an underlying basis as a matter of fact.
They came to make sly remarks and play a word game, which is off topic. One further expresses he is not about solid discussion only thread disruptions in his own words, "we the members going to stand up and poke holes in their little warm fuzzy balloons, and have a little fun along the way" which he has done historically, Disruption of threads. But as he posts further he believes this is a financial thread in "it is deadly to financial discussion in which all information and perception must be entered to ensure a full and balanced basis for analysis." I have no clue what that means here on the MY PERSONAL THREAD.
However, the point is he is out to challenge the IHUB Principal & moderation (censorship) and to disrupt where ever he can as cleverly as he can. So after walking away for an hour or so and thinking carefully I agree because of the challenge to Bob and questioning certain scenarios the concept of IHUB moderated thread is all this is about.
In conclusion I like you feel these posters are here solely to disrupt. I will delete all this mess and delete any further posts by these particular gentlemen on this thread. This is not a financial site but{b} my personal site{/b} and I do not have to take this type of underhandness.
If they want to challenge the IHUB concept then they can create their own personal threads or to the parking lot.
:=) Gary Swancey
Gary,
Although I know that as director I can, will and have removed objectionable posts. It has always been my policy to defer to the Chair when the Chair is available.
IMHO, posts #380,382,384, & 386 should be removed on the following grounds:
1. OFF TOPIC
2. personal attack upon the Chair
3. Duplicate post in an attempt to circumvent the rules of A Small Voice Board.
Of course I will defer to your position as Chair for final disposition.
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Though not, perhaps, pointed in the direction you intended.
Don't you go pointing that sharp stick at me!
Sam
IHUB = Immediately Humble Unto Bob
I know I have been silent for some time but there is a reason. When I first heard SI Bob was coming to IHUB I became concerned especially for the peace and tranquillity and knowing the only thing left on SI were the stalking off-topic bullies that are dismay and confusion and merely hit generators. My opinion as a small voice in cyberspace is to question that which I believe is harmful to the people. Thus this composition is based on the scar from the character assassination carried out with extreme prejudice on SI since 1998 under the bias administration that allowed such nonsense to carry on. IHUB was originally a vision for people to escape the turmoil and havoc of SI and Raging Bull thus I rip down my sleeve and show the branding of the cyber-numeral 8 on my right shoulder and invoke Law 7. IHUB should be returned to the people.
As through our history destructive forces have arisen to pursue total world domination. It is the quest of every evil egomaniac from Hitler and his holocaust to the sick cartoon character Stewie Griffin. Where Stewie is a one-year-old little boy of truest evil, Hilter and others grew their armies. The bottom line and primary goal today is to control and completely dominate over all Cyber-Mankind. Until this objective comes to fruition, anyone or anything that interferes with the grand plan shall be destroyed.
In 1997 an atomic bomb dropped on the stock market and thus a new era of information exploded. As in the movie “The Postman” a New World order would arise out of this lawless Chaos like the Xerox Salesman who gains total control and becomes the law of the land. Intelligent people have asked and wondered who would arise out of the mysterious darkness of Cyberspace to be the self-appointment supreme Emperor of the Cyber-Cosmos that would have the army (cronies) to subjugate all who dare to oppose this newest deus with egotistical real-life illusions of Granduer?
The war for total domination of Cyber-World has been raging for since 1997 as documented in John Emshwiller’s book, “Scam Dogs and Momo Mamas.” Within this simply written publication John Emshwiller articulately conveys and documents the controversial battles for power, influence and control of Cyber-Turf. Is this a classic and prelude basically of events to come as the book shows the self-appointed emperors along with their rises and falls.
Lets face it, the bottom line to a chat site is advertising dollars. The more hits you have the more the site can make claim to fame. It does not matter about the topic or the quality of content, it only matters about hits. Thus comes the controversy factor, which basically is designed for the more the merrier. Truth, facts and fair play does not matter. The verbal warfare is what is needed so the hits can escalate. Thus a site only needs an army of renegade posters to secure their market share such as: harassing stalkers, relentless bashers, urban legend generators, whiners, libelous innuendo experts, unlawful insinuations, abusive rhetorical manipulators, invasive privacy revealers, tortuous spin doctors, and there are more. Having an army of these types taking advantage of total unchecked disruption can easily increase the hit count to a site. What is lost is the quality.
This is compounded and can get totally out of control by a peacemaker with the opinion and power to enforce it like bad mouthing a stock all you want. Negative opinions are just as appropriate as positive ones and truth is not the issue. The excuse is simply refute the and refute it over and over and over again until it becomes urban legend and the truth will be off topic. This creates activity, traffic and most of all hits. However, one shroud is to limit the defense so the attack can get out of control. The defender can only post a limited amount but the gang of disrupters can overwhelm the thread or visa versa so the hit count escalates but does not allow equal time for the defense or offense.
But this type of distressing attacks and disruption weights on people. After a while decent people eventually take enough of it and leave after exhaustingly seeking relief of some nature from the peace-keepers. Thus losing the main posters and their following the site will die as in the fate of Silicon Investor (SI). Realizing that people had had enough and searching for a safe haven, IHUB recruited key people to test the beta site. Investors HUB (IHUB) became such a sanctuary for those that were tired of the nonsense. People wanted to return to the principals of IRC and the features of SI. To answer this outcry of the people, the concept was a Chairman of the thread that would have the power to keep order. As the site grew, a solid reputation began to grow as each community had its own leadership thus peace and tranquillity became the underlying basis for sharing information. Soon little communities sprout up as they try to keep the focus on information. The people had their sanctuary.
Invaders of nonsense were dealt with swiftly by the Chairmen. Bashers, spin-doctors, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) fabricators plus other attackers were not allowed to spew nonsense without an underlying basis. Multiple aliases were swiftly exposed and IHUB began to demonstrate that it was not the hits but the quality of information that was first and foremost. IHUB was becoming the people’s choice. The downfall of SI is a prime example of not addressing these situations. Even though the character assassinations and personal attacks was mainly responsible for getting SI’s hit ratio up, it was the lack of implementing TOS and then doing it only selectively that became the waterloo for SI. In the end, SI was doomed because these relentlessly stalking cronies that do not share stock information nor provide due diligence nor any other type investment rhetoric or research, other than blaming the Internet posters for failures of companies were in full control. They are/were there to generate trouble and thus destroyed SI.
In March 2001, the controversies on SI were no longer a problem and the hit ratio was destroyed. Basically, people were fed up and had moved away from the heckling and ridiculous lack of or rather bias administration TOS procedures. Of course a lot of white washing was spun to account for the exodus from SI. However, the army of hit creators only had themselves to post to in the end and thus SI cut back on the peace-keepers. Instead of keeping peace and dealing with these hit creators SI found itself alone for the crowd simply went elsewhere. No more need for a peacekeeper.
Again, IHUB was an alternative from the bashers, stalkers, bullies, urban legend generators, character assassinations and total pandemonium architects. As the Internet posters searched for a site where some control to these evil hit creators could be found, such a place most felt would be IHUB. But alas a sad day for the people came when the main controlling force and adminstrative icon of SI came to IHUB and the SI hit creator cronies followed to now conquered IHUB. With SI laying raped and stripped clean on a bloody battlefield in the after math of hit creators thus a new campaign motto echoes through the endless void of cyberspace. Immediately Humble Unto Bob! (IHUB)
As I watch this newest regime invade and establish its new laws and power over the site, I am reminded again of the Postman. As Bob the computer salesman flexes his muscles and totally appears to be undermining the original concept and promises that were used to get pioneers to the site to establish small communities, I envision the invasion of the small communities by Bethlehem the Xerox salesman. The pushing and bullying of people now suddenly disrupts the once peaceful community. The good guys attempting to defend the onslaught of the new invading cronies of hit creators are eventually dealt with by a swift sword and punishment for daring to defend one’s self and maintain the integrity of the site. Thus the new regime flexes its muscles.
Watching Francios, one of the original recruited Chairman stand up for what he believe to be forthright and did not humble unto Bob, was then strung up as General Bethlehem did one prisoner in one scene. There Bethlem read the "Laws of Eight" but the comparison is quite unique as Francois met with the terminating sword of Bob:
“The Postman” “Laws of Eight”
1. You will obey orders without question.
2. Punishment shall be swift.
3. Mercy is for the weak.
4. Terror will defeat reason.
5. Your allegiance is to the clan.
6. Justice can be dictated.
7. Any Clansman may challenge for leadership of the Clan.
8. There is only one penalty - DEATH
Could it be this same “Laws of Eight” have now come into existence on IHUB with the new regime of “Bob’s World?” Immediately Humbled Unto Bob or face the “Laws of Eight”
1. You will obey Bob’s orders without question.
2. Punishment shall be swift.
3. Mercy is for the weak.
4. Terror will defeat reason. (cronies will handle this)
5. Your allegiance is to BOB!
6. Justice can be dictated. (Bias Administration Practices)
7. NO ONE may challenge for leadership, influence or turf in Bob’s World
8. There is only one penalty – TERMINATION
When I confronted Bob, I made a statement to see if I could get a confirmation, “that let the evil do whatever they want and the good guys when they complain get nailed.
Welcome to Bob;s world.”
In his arrogant style Bob replies, “Actually, the last part of that is more accurate than you intended.” Thus the confirmation that IHUB is basically now “Bob’s World.” He continues with his reasoning for the first part as “The fact that someone says another is evil and wrong doesn't necessarily make it so, in my experience.” Thus the cronies reign on and create hits since evil cannot be defined and thus the battlefield for control is now established.
Also the reasoning that was read to Francois before Bob’s sword terminated Francios’ existence was only 6 of the “Laws of 8” or was it.
Effective immediately, your account on Investors Hub is terminated. The reasons for this action are:
1. Continued abuse of the CoB feature. This is a violation of Law 6 the Justice can be dictated. Fighting the cronies of disruption and there relentless attacks, spins, personal attacks and even posting his private accounts from SI and RB very slyly only caused the defense to become emotion enough to sign his own death warrant in accordance with Law 6. Of course the cronies are left to rain terror on the next target as Law 8 is executed by Bob on the target.
2. Continued personal attacks on me despite my very clear warnings against it. A clear and distinct violation of Law 5 to have total allegiance is to BOB! Also a violation to Law 7 because Francois dared to expose the bias tactics of Bob!
3. The almost exclusively destructive nature of your participation since reinstatement from your previous suspension. Direct Violation to Law 1 for not being totally obedient and Immediately Humbling Unto Bob! Which invoked Law 2 & 3 where punishment was swift and no mercy thus establishing the invoking of Law 6 because Law 4 was strategically used to get the advantage over Francois. But also Law 7 for daring to contest Bob’s reign of bias and unfair administrative practices Law 6 thus resulting in Law 8.
4. Overall conduct very unbefitting a Chairperson on the site, including personal attacks on me and others.
Again by allowing the situation to get him justly emotional this caused a direct violation of numerous Laws and now suddenly there is a befitting conduct Laws. I guess the Laws of engagement change also, of which neither have been published or made know to anyone. But by defending against the cronies and not allowing their hit creating disruption to fester, Francios’ conduct is now selectively being use as an excuse to exercise Law 8. Where maybe a suspension would calm him down. Regardless of fairness, this sudden conduct law establishes the underlying basis that there are no Chairmen anymore only the KING CHAIRMAN BOB! Thus Law 7 is violated and Law 8 executed.
5. Continuing the "Bash Bob" theme on the Q&A thread despite very clear warnings to everyone in general and you specifically. Violation of Law 1 & 5 though nothing was done to stop the same on Francois or the off topic attacks by the hit creating cronies.
6. Continued harassment of me personally. Again Law 1 and 5 caused the effective judgment and execution of of Law 8. But for anyone but Bob this has to be endured under normal chat sites, which is one main benefit that IHUB allowed.
Now with Francois dead, the cronies can now regroup and seek out for another target to gain control of Cyber-World as the bias tactics continues using the historical tactics of SI. Thus absolute chaos has come to IHUB and makes you wonder if IHUB knew the turmoil and how the site would change under this newest regime and thus the creation of Bob’s World and the “Laws of 8.” The influx of the hit creating cronies that only cause total disarray, dismay and harassment that have gone unchallenged until the target is eventually executed under law 8, has floursihed SI and now follow to invade IHUB to reek havoc.
The once peaceful society and unique concept appear to have been totally undermined and IHUB over night has transformed into the perils of SI, which caused people to leave. SI is a desert in Cyber-World and the once fruitful and growing society of IHUB is being overrun with bullies gaining control. Harmony has been replaced with CHAOS. Facts and solid information is being reciprocated with attacks, innuendo, insinuation, fabrication and attacks.
As I became furious over the frame and demise that was so well planned against Francios, I like “The Postman” entered the battlefield challenging the unfair and bias tactics that lead to the malicious execution of Francios. Just like in “The Postman” I shouted who I was and I claimed Law 7 to challenge this newest world dominance takeover of justice being dictated and reason replace with terror. Just like General Bethlehem, Bob merely conveyed the classic, “HUH?” He forgets the scars I wear from the turmoil and character assassination that he allowed through bias administration practices on my attackers, not to mention others who suffered from the same bias practices. However, Jill was the only relief I recieved.
He forgets his blatant tactics of logic and bias ideas that cause people so much grief and eventual escaped seeking an alternative site thus leaving SI. He forgets the entire harm he festered and allowed so the cronies could gain full control without ramifications for stalking, personal attacks, posting off topic, innuendoes, etc. He forgets that SI grew in posts because of the dismay and personal attacks for control of Cyber-World under his regime that ran off everyone good and only the cronies were left to fight among themselves. He forgets that people when they have been wronged do not forget those that had the power to stop every violation of TOS never once even justified any corrective action.
But the victims and their cyber-scars do remember the suspensions for defending and the cyber-scars of the attacks and the hours of defending. Guilty until proven innocent reign supreme and even then once proven innocent, the cronies are allowed to continue the urban legend attacks unchecked. This unchecking caused the stock talk sites to become personal attack boards not about the stock anymore except for the initial attack on the company, which later spread to a character assassination of a long. Thus the threads of SI were about attacking individuals and the defense or refuting, which eventually created mayhem but the hit count was effectively stimulated.
I learnt a few things in declaring war on this new regime. There are no Chairmen only pawns to a DICTATOR, an ultimate unchecked power and by his standards whatever they are and can change as needed, he can use “Befitting Conduct” so the cronies can fester and gain absolute control. Also if anyone dares to challenge this new regime then your right to post will be limited and thus the bottom line is to eventually silence you and if you do not go silent thus execution of Law 8. This is “Bob’s World” and you will humble unto him or face Law 8.
It is a sad day when Matt with a truly heartfelt for posters looking to escape the misery that most faced on SI has now only undone the very concept and thus Immediately Humbling Unto Bob has undermined the entire concept and purpose of his vision. As the mayhem festers, Matt has to realize he has a major problem or maybe hits is all that is important and not the quality and tranquillity of the site with the chairman concept totally undermined.
What was once a free and objective site is now the haven for the lifeless hit generating cronies and unlike “The Postman” this newest regime is getting paid. Wonder how many hits and Law 8s will be executed, as with all total world domination scenarios, before “Bob’s World” returns back to the original concept and to the people. People came here originally to escape that which has now followed the logic, arrogance and bias practices of the new administration.
I call it as I see it and Francios should have gotten a suspension at worse case but not termination. I feel Bob has no right to undermine the original concept and this is not Bob’s world. IHUB for made as a successful alternative to other sites for the people. Let’s hope that it returns to the people soon and this is merely and over dramatization.
:=) Gary Swancey
Uh Oh looks like Paid Bashing is real!
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15699947
:=) Gary Swancey
Contracted Independent Investor Relations for
CBQI & DTGI, compensated a monthly cash fee
http://www.marketex.net/compensate.htm
Gary, look what I found!
The Series F Convertible Preferred Stock
On January 27, 2000, the Series F Preferred Stock Certificate of
Designations was amended to obligate the company to issue up to seventy-seven
million shares of its common stock upon the conversion of the 12,500 designated
shares of Series F Preferred Stock, as noted above. Such increase in the number
of shares of common stock was made in the interest of investor relations of the
company.
Under the terms of the Series F Subscription Agreement entered into August
10, 1999 that the company would be required to make certain payments in the
event of its failure to effect conversion in a timely manner. In connection with
the Series F Preferred Stock, the company would be obligated to redeem the
excess of the stated value over the amount permitted to be converted into common
stock. Such additional amounts would be treated as obligations of the company.
At various dates through December 31, 2000 the other 7,526 shares of Series F
Preferred Stock have been converted into 48,776,638 shares of the company's
common stock. Presently, there are no shares of Series F Preferred Stock
outstanding.
And there are more! Although it appears the conversions have been done for some serious cash. $2 million converted to $6.6 at todays stock price close,in only monthsNow I am evaluating if the worst is behind....one's still on books have a .12 bottom, and there are some other good things in todays filing. This friggen #@$&*#@. Another gd cd problem.
These instraments ought to be illegal. And another thing....it would seam to me the returns on those debenture mutual funds should be much higher. Am I missing something....or will they be showing some tidy returns the next 6 months.
That is a spin of Mary Ellen Joseph's poem that is suppose to end with ... means Believing in yourself...
http://www.bluemountain.com/winners/index2.html
She won second place of the Second Tri-Annual Blue Mountain Arts Poetry Contest, I believe in 1997.
I hate when authors are not recognized.
:=) Gary Swancey
Contracted Independent Investor Relations for
CBQI & DTGI, compensated a monthly cash fee
http://www.marketex.net/compensate.htm
“Standing For What You Believe In”
Standing for what you believe in,
Regardless of the odds against you,
And the pressure that tears at your resistance,
…means courage
Keeping a smile on your face,
When inside you feel like dying,
For the sake of supporting others,
…means strength
Stopping at nothing,
And doing what’s in your heart,
You know is right,
…means determination
Doing more than is expected,
To make another’s life a little more bearable,
Without uttering a single complaint,
…means compassion
Helping a friend in need,
No matter the time or effort,
To the best of your ability,
…means loyalty
Giving more than you have,
And expecting nothing
But nothing in return,
…means selflessness
Holding your head high,
And being the best you know you can be
When life seems to fall apart at your feet,
Facing each difficulty with the confidence
That will bring you better tomorrow’s,
And never giving up,
…means confidence.
Author Unknown
Save them, they are worth $8.00 each...and by the way, short any stock trading higher than 3x book if you can, otherwise save your spare change, in DC we are buying pennies from homeless people through the volunteers retained by our non profit Free and Clear Foundations for $1.00 each, right in front of the Federal Reserve Bank Headquarters and across from the Treasury building near the White House...stay tuned as the dollar soars, and another 5 trillion get's swiped into thin air from the NYSE (current market cap 18.5 trillion), and more South American countries currencies collapse and adopt the dollar as their standard of value....Three cheers for the Penny King!!!!
Founder: The Free and Clear Foundations of Earth, Chairman & CEO Penny King Productions, The Free and Clear Bancorporation, Senior Trustee; The Free and Clear Fund. www.iexchange.com top analyst!
Some Thoughts on Due Diligence (DD)
"What some consider DD and what I consider DD are worlds apart..."
So What is Due Diligence?
This question is often unanswered or worse misanswered. Many "investors" consider the latest 'hot tip' to be sufficient DD. I don't. Even if I choose to evaluate a 'hot tip', most never get past my Technical Screening process. Those that do get to pass the following rigorous gauntlet. Why so difficult? I wish to avoid actually having to visit the company! But that is another tale altogether.
This is my idea of DD:
1. Gather all contact information available.
2. Read the Filings. Perform Fundamental Analysis.
3. Contact IR to verify steps 1 & 2.
4. Read the Filings.
5. Review independent sources for ratings or opinion.
6. Read the Filings.
7. Review trading logs.
8. Read the Filings.
9. Judge Public Sentiment.
10. Read the Filings.
11. Review Technical Analysis on non OTC issues.
12. Read the Filings.
13. Review Fundamental Analysis.
14. Read the Filings.
And last but not least
READ THE FILINGS!!!
What do you ask the IR?
Since step one involves gathering contact info most opening questions will involve verifying that information (ie Transfer Agent). This lets the IR know you are serious and have done your homework.
If you have read the filings you can and should ask the status of any financing agreements and or recent announcements (PR's) that are relevant. In the case of a PR that says something will happen by x date, you can ask if date was met, and if not why not. Don't be confrontational just ask about status.
How you do things will have a great impact on the response from IR. Deliver questions straightforward and forthright. Don't try to cover too many topics at once. When you hammer an IR they tend to defer their answers. Nobody likes to get the third degree.
The biggest thing to remember is that this conversation should take place BEFORE you buy the stock and AFTER you've read everything available about the stock. As you read there will be questions that arise. Some will be answered by further reading, only the few that remain after your research will require an email or phone call.
Do IR's Lie?
A good IR won't lie because that breaks the distinction between an IR and a PR. Listen for hyperbole. A good IR will remind you of Joe Friday on Dragnet...just the facts. Too much enthusiasm may indicate that you should place your investment elsewhere.
My DD will usually begin with 25 issues or so. By the time I'm done with steps one and two it's usually down to 3-5. More often than not I delay contacting IR until the last step. That way I don't have to write more than one or two.
Good DD doesn't happen by accident. It also doesn't eliminate losses. But it can go a long way to reduce the frequency of losing.
Good luck to all!
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Another good article Gary! eom.
b/r Arch
Save Our Stock
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0219/113.html;$sessionid$HJCXREAAAAF4XQFIAGWCFFA
Chana R. Schoenberger, Forbes Magazine, 02.19.01
Is there some flaky concept stock that you would like to sell short? Be forewarned: You could get caught in a short squeeze. Companies that don't like short-sellers are rounding up loyal shareholders in schemes that choke off the air supply of the shorts.
It's all perfectly legal—and maybe even fair. After all, bears gang up against companies they have shorted by spreading tales of financial distress. Bulls gang up by removing their shares from borrowable status. That shrinks the supply of shortable stock. When a squeeze like this works, the shorts must scramble for cover, buying back their borrowed shares at ever- higher prices.
Squeezing shares appears to have worked for small Storage Computer (amex: SOS - news - people), a Nashua, N.H. servermaker (market cap: $135 million) trading under the unfortunate ticker symbol SOS. The stock rocketed from 75 cents in October 1999 to $24 in November 2000. Then came a bear raid that knocked 71% off its value. Chairman Theodore Goodlander's response: a Dec. 20 letter to shareholders begging for help against the shorts. The price has since doubled to $9.
How does a loyal shareholder help squeeze the enemy? By putting what is called a "no borrowing legend" on the shares. Often this takes the form of moving shares from a margin account, where, under a typical brokerage contract, the broker can freely lend them, to a cash account. If need be, the shareholder can pull shares out of the stock-loan system by taking delivery of a certificate.
Short squeezes can work for large companies, too. In July Irwin Jacobs, a Minneapolis financier who owns 5% of troubled insurer Conseco, independently waged his own campaign against shorts. He spent $400,000 for full-page ads in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, calling on fellow shareholders to take their shares "in-house." "It was incredibly successful," says Jacobs of his ad barrage, which he credits with helping Conseco's price to double since.
How does all this go on? Remember how shorting works. The short-seller borrows stock from a brokerage firm, which in turn borrows the shares from a customer with a long position. The short-seller sells the borrowed shares in the open market. Someday he must buy back that number of shares in the open market. If he is able to do so at a lower price, he has made a profit.
The broker can make good money from this activity. The customer whose idle shares were used in the transaction gets no compensation. The broker pockets interest income, around 6%, from the proceeds of the short sale, passing along only a portion of it to the short-seller (or none, if the short-seller lacks clout). Worse, if the stock is hard to find, the short-seller may even have to pay a borrowing fee of up to 1.5%.
Over time many companies have won important, if temporary, victories against the shorts by getting their fans to grab back shares. Presstek, which was working on a supposedly revolutionary printing system (FORBES, June 17, 1996), is one. The stock rocketed to $190 although the shorts insisted that it wasn't worth anything at all. Presstek is down to $11 now, but it is likely that more than a few shorts were forced to cover at a loss long before their viewpoint was vindicated.
Don't expect the shorts to give up, though. Their case against Storage Computer remains intact: Goodlander admits it has a negligible market share in an industry dominated by giants like IBM and EMC. And it has lost money for the last three years. Northland Cranberries tried to freeze out the shorts in 1997, but too few investors went along with its plea. That stock, $17 in August 1997, now goes for just over $1.
:=) Gary Swancey
Contracted Independent Investor Relations for
CBQI & DTGI, compensated a monthly cash fee
http://www.marketex.net/compensate.htm
Scammers & Spammers
Do Scammers and Spammers share more than seven common letters?
Having discussed (and often cussed) the tactics of investment message board scammers for some time, and having been following the spam issue almost since it's inception, I have spotted some similarities in the methods of scam artists and the methods of spammers.
One of the first things you might notice is the attempt to hide behind false identities. Both parties wish to hide their true names in order to avoid the ramifications of their actions, some of which though not illegal are certainly very likely to invoke a negative response. As a result both scammers and spammers require the same investigative tools to ferret them out.
If you never go hunting one of these types you'll never see one of the most interesting correlation's between them. They tend to nest. What I mean by that is, you will often find more than one scammer and/or spammer operating from the same building. Sometimes they even use the same office connection.
If you think about it, this is logical. Both scammers and spammers have similar goals. Namely to influence as many as possible to do (or not do) something. They also need to remain anonymous to the masses lest they damage their credibility. Some might say that so many folks know what spam is and delete it that it doesn't work anymore. Credibility isn't an issue. Until you consider the number of newbies coming to the Internet every day, and that even a .5% response on a 10 or 20 million send email will generate more than enough to cover the cost to send. Why else would they keep doing it?
I'll grant you that a stock scam on a message board is more work than sending 20 million emails. But is apparently just as effective. One need only to look at the number of multiple aliases on a single message board to see that this type of scam is quite popular today. Given the difficulty of tracking these folks and the lack of cooperation from the MB services, it seems unlikely that things will get better before they get worse.
One interesting possibility that we may discover is how many times the scammers and the spammers are one in the same.
As always, keep your eyes and ears open. You never know what you'll find!
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Matt, wouldn't that be a great way to see how many people read certain threads and who they are?
Never saw that before on RB either, however just today I noticed someone posted a "ignore this poster" link at..........
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=RELIG&read=36880
The poster that was linked to ignore was named OhMy_Uintah
The RB poster that posted the ignore link was "tool0006" and began posting today. He only posted to two threads and those were two threads of us RB newcomers. I'm too tired to connect the dots on this riddle.
A brand new form of manipulation!
Clicking on the link in this post automatically membermarks this person.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NCTI&read=59797
In addition to the membermark manipulation, I wonder if there are any other agendas to this situation. Is there a way someone can monitor how many membermarks they get on the RB boards, and thus get a reading of how many people are watching but not posting in a particular time frame/
Any ideas?
Never seen this one before.
Here's a WHOPPER!
Gonna get interesting.
http://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/internet5.htm
Imagine busy to the tenth power. I have hardly had time to read much less post. Things are really taking off.
later
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
This was posted over on RB in the AVBC thread by Buckwheat131.
I thought it merited inclusion here.
A little primer on convertibles and how companies and regulators are dealing manipulation:
http://www.sfglaw.com/html/junk_equity.html
JUNK EQUITY DEALS CAN HARM STOCK
While a "floorless convertible" offering can help a struggling company, the floating conversion feature is potentially ruinous.
By Robert C. Friese and Jahan P. Raissi
as published in The National Law Journal, February 15, 1999
In the 1980s, troubled companies often turned to junk bonds as a source of last-resort financing. More recently, small, struggling public companies that cannot raise capital through traditional means have turned to a relatively new type of security, which, depending on one's point of view, has been called a "floorless convertible," "toxic convertible," "death spiral convertible" or simply "junk equity." Although these securities can be a boon to a struggling company, they can also be the final nail in its coffin if not structured properly.
Abuses of these securities are causing substantial losses to the investing public and great harm to many companies that rely on them for financing.
Although the possible permutations are many, floorless convertibles typically take the form of privately place preferred equity or debentures that are convertible to common stock after a fixed period of time. The conversion price is generally discounted 15% to 30% from the market price of the common stock at the time of conversion.
What distinguishes these securities is that the conversion ratio is tied to, and varies with, the market price of the underlying common stock --- hence the name "floorless" convertibles. The lower the market price of the common stock at conversion, the greater the number of common shares the company must issue to holders of the floorless convertibles.
Like many other seemingly good ideas that often don't work in practice, the concept of floorless convertibles is theoretically sound. Given honest, nonmanipulative market activity in the underlying common stock, when properly structured the capital raised in an offering of floorless convertibles can allow a struggling company to realize greater shareholder value.
Unfortunately, the history of these offerings has shown that the results are often ruinous for companies and their shareholders. This has become a serious problem since this type of security has grown to an annual billion-dollar-plus cottage industry for certain of its promoters.
The source of most of the recent problems with floorless convertibles has been the floating conversion feature. If the market price of an issuer's common stock declines, the floating conversion feature can result in an unexpectedly large number of common shares being issued at conversion.
The release of large quantities of common stock into the market can significantly depress the market price of the common stock and can necessitate an even greater issuance of common stock in subsequent conversions. This phenomenon can create a downward spiral in the market price of the common stock as greater numbers of shares are sold into the public market.
Moreover, the issuance of large blocks of new common stock severely dilutes existing shareholders. The floating conversion feature also provides the unscrupulous with an incentive to depress the market price of the company's common stock.
Even for legitimate investors, there is an incentive to try to lock in profit by selling the issuer's common stock short, covering with shares obtained in the conversion. Often, the cumulative effect of market manipulation, short-selling and the food of common stock onto the market has been to put a company and its stock into the "death spiral."
High-Tech Targets
Some companies in the high-technology sector recently have been using floorless convertibles. Shares of these companies often are thinly traded, making them especially susceptible to price drops when the converted shares reach the market or when they are faced with sustained short sales.
Though floorless convertibles can be used by seasoned companies in turnaround situations as well as by new companies, the common denominator in such offerings is the issuer's lack of a source of conventional financing. Without the ability to tap into traditional debt or equity funding, issuers resort to floorless convertible offerings and often have little bargaining strength to avoid or blunt some of their more dangerous features.
The appeal of these instruments to their purchasers is easy to understand. The floating conversion ration and discount to market provide protection against a drop in the price of the common stock and usually all by assure the holders a profit.
To try to lock in a profit, the holders of the floorless convertibles sometimes will sell the issuer's common stock short and, thereafter, will cover with the converted common stock.
Alternatively, a holder may simply convert in to common stock at a discount to market and sell the stock to public investors, often pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-3, at a guaranteed profit. An emerging body of largely professional investors actively solicits companies for this type of private placement.
The Threat of Manipulation
Floorless convertibles pose serious dangers for issuers, even when the securities are held by legitimate investors. In the wrong hands, floorless convertibles are a stock manipulator's dream. If the holder of a floorless convertible sells the common stock of the issuer short, the market price of the security is driven lower and, at conversion, it will provide the holder with more common shares. The holder can use the shares received in the conversion to cover its short position and still may have shares to sell in the open market.
Sales in the open market may further depress the market price and increase the number of common shares received in subsequent conversions. The further the market price of the common stock declines, or can be driven down, the greater the profit.
In some cases, the manipulation of the issuer's common stock is overt. Traders have observed large buy orders immediately countered with several sell orders at prices below the immediately preceding buy order.
"Marking the close" – in which sell orders are place at the close of the market to create a downtick and a bearish impression – is one technique that has been used. Another technique involves massive short sales in situations in which almost no shares are available for borrowing, suggesting manipulative "naked" short selling.
In some of the most extreme instances, share prices of companies issuing such convertibles have been driven down by more than 90% for brief periods. On the heels of these price collapses, companies are presented with notices of conversion.
As the market price of the issuer's stock collapses, existing shareholders are hit with the one-two punch of a downward spiraling stock price and large-scale dilution of their holdings. Issuing companies sometimes face the delisting of their shares, permanently damaged capital structures and an inability to raise additional financing.
This turn of events can occur even in the absence of overt market manipulation. This flows from the holder's ability to lock in a profit by selling the issuer's common stock short and covering the position with shares obtained in the conversion.
In addition, professional short-sellers have caught on to the fact that the price of shares of companies that resort to floorless convertible financing will usually fall, and they seek out such companies as short-selling opportunities. Holders of floorless convertibles and market makers or others willing to short the stock sometimes enter into stock-loan arrangements, allowing the prospective short-sellers to borrow the stock needed for short sales.
Theoretical Limit
The shorting of shares is not illegal, but when done with manipulative intent or by brokerage firms or individuals without the ability to deliver the underlying common shares, shorting can become illegal and manipulative. The theoretical limit on such manipulation should be the "borrowability" of the issuer's shares, which is often nonexistent in thinly traded stocks, even from brokerage firms with large "short boxes."
Yet the fact that there may be no shares available to borrow does not seem to have limited the sort of shorting activity that has driven down the shares of many companies relying on this financing vehicle. This raises obvious questions of manipulation and enforcement of what are primarily self-regulatory organization (SRO) rules limiting most naked short-selling.
Regulatory Agencies
Securities regulators are beginning to pay closer attention to these instruments. The concern of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) has been reported in recent months. The responses under consideration by the NASD run from informational campaigns to rules limiting the dilution of existing shareholders.
On Jan. 21, the NASD issued an interpretive release explaining the application of existing NASD rules to an offering of floorless convertibles by Nasdaq-listed issuers. The NASD release identified six NASD rules and categories of rules that may be implicated in such an offering: the shareholder approval rules, the voting rights rules, the bid price requirement, the listing of additional shares rules, the change in control rules and the discretionary authority rules.
Perhaps the most significant of the interpretations concerns the shareholder approval rules. Under certain circumstances, these rules require shareholder approval before the issue of common stock, or securities convertible to common stock, equal to 20% or more of the common stock outstanding before the issuance.
The release explains that, in applying the shareholder-approval rules, the NASD staff will look to the maximum number of common shares that could potentially be issued to determine whether the 20% threshold has been met. Thus, regardless of what is likely or anticipated, if, theoretically, the floorless convertibles could be converted into an amount of common stock equal to or greater than 20% of the outstanding common stock at the time the convertibles are issued, ****shareholder approval will be required before the floorless convertibles can be issued****.
Similarly, both the Division of Corporation Finance and the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission have been watching the developments surrounding floorless convertibles. The Division of Enforcement is investigating a number of floorless convertible offerings and the subsequent conversions and activity in the underlying common stock, some of which involve potential manipulative activity by entities and individuals abroad.
Issuers' Concerns
From an issuer's point of view, the regulatory concerns connected with an offering of floorless convertibles center chiefly on the private placement of the convertibles, the registration and resale of the common stock after conversion and the disclosure obligations arising from the offerings.
For investors, increased regulatory scrutiny is raising concerns. Litigation by shareholders is also on the increase. Although this may seem to be a logical area for shareholder litigation against alleged stock manipulators, manipulation cases are hard to prove and, to date, have not brought the plaintiffs' securities bar into action in a meaningful way.
One theory included in some cases brought recently asserts liability for short-swing profits under § 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A sometimes-overlooked consequence of the floating conversion feature is that, if the price of the common stock falls far enough and the number of shares received in a conversion balloons, the holder may unexpectedly become subject to the short-swing profit provisions of § 16 and the reporting requirement of § 13.
Several disputes have arisen between issuers and the holders of the convertible securities. Faced with the prospect of extreme dilution of existing shareholders or of making a substantial cash payment when such cash may be unavailable, some issuers have simply refused to convert the preferred shares or to bring effective the registration of the underlying common shares.
Although this may give rise to possible contract-based claims by the holders of the securities, the few courts that have dealt with the issue have not been consistent in their responses. The responses have been largely driven by the specific facts, but the alternatives seem to be to uphold and enforce the literal reading of the certificate of designation, or to deny mandatory injunctive relief to the holder of the convertibles (based on availability of the legal remedy of damages or ambiguity in contract language).
Litigation commenced by the holders of floorless convertibles to compel conversion has met with accusations from the issuing companies alleging manipulation and bad faith on the part of the holders. Some issuers also have filed suits alleging manipulation against holders of floorless convertibles to prevent conversion.
It is too early to tell whether the volume of litigation will grow or what judicially created rules will emerge from these cases. On the one hand, the holders of the securities have a fairly straightforward contract claim for conversion and registration of the common shares. On the other hand, an issuer that can demonstrate manipulative activity or other illegal activity on the part of the holders of these securities should fare well in halting or limiting a conversion or registration. The few cases that have surfaced to date have either settled or remain unresolved on the merits.
What Should Be Done?
With at least hundreds of these offerings taking place – and apparently more than a billion dollars being raised annually – it would seem that some regulatory or legislative restrictions are needed. The NASD's recent interpretive release is a step in the right direction, but it is too early to gauge what impact it may have. In the meantime, the harm that can be done invites aggressive enforcement of the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the federal securities laws and SRO rules.
Given the evidentiary difficulties a manipulation case presents and the absence of a private right of action for aiding and abetting since the Central Bank case, and because some of the questionable conduct occurs through brokerage firms and other regulated entities, the most effective enforcement mechanisms probably rest with the SEC and SROs. To date, no enforcement actions have surfaced, and none of the market participants who profit from these securities has stepped forward to help limit the abuses connected with these offerings.
Issuers' Awareness
In the interim, the best precautions against the harmful aspects of floorless convertible securities lies in the awareness on the part of the issuers and their counsel of where the danger lie. In general, if these securities can be avoided, they should be.
If such an offering is the only alternative, issuers should use contractual restrictions to mitigate the potential hazards of these securities. For example, the floorless convertible holder's ability to sell short or to enter stock-loan arrangements should be carefully and tightly restricted – and probably prohibited altogether, if possible.
In addition, negotiating a minimum holding period before the common shares may be registered and resold is useful, as is restricting the right to convert (or the number of shares that may be converted) if the stock price drops below a certain point. A floor on the number of shares obtainable in a conversion, or a manageable cash payout alternative to a stock conversion, may also be useful to limit the harm these instruments can cause.
Finally, issuers need to perform the due diligence necessary to ascertain what type of investors they are dealing with before issuing these securities, including pursuing references to their experience (and that of the issuers) in such prior investments.
Beyond contractual provisions, the issuer may sometimes have the ability to deny the right to convert or to defer registration of the underlying common shares. Although both alternatives present obvious litigation risks, ****the obligation of the issuer to disclose fully all material facts before bringing a registration statement effective may justify deferring conversion,***** registration or both, especially when manipulative activity appears to be having a substantial impact on the issuer's common stock and, perhaps, on the company's listing status and ability to survive.
The floorless convertible security may in some instances be the only way a company can continue in business, and under such circumstances it may protect existing shareholders from a substantial or total loss of their investments. Thus, as a financing tool, this instrument has potential value and utility to some companies and their shareholders.
When investors in floorless convertibles are essentially guaranteed a profit, however, it has usually meant that existing shareholders pay the price through massive dilution and a collapsed stock price.
Unless and until tighter rules are in place, the only recourse for companies in need of such financing will be to understand thoroughly what they are getting into and to negotiate contractual provisions sufficient to blunt some of the more harmful features of these securities.
This article is reprinted with permission from the February 15, 1999 edition of The National Law Journal. © 1999 NLP IP Company.
Law News Network website at http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com.
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Very quiet over here lately!
What gives?
Oh yeah I remember that well. I also have such a distinct sytle and purposely designed rhetorical signatures that if I do try to create another alias .. BOOM I will be disocvered in minutes, esppecially by the numerous exposures I have done and those out for vengeance.
Now why do I have these signatures it is to discover deception. Say someone tries to copycat a rhetorical signature in a character assassination or creation of an Urban Legend or better tries to claim one of my compositions as thei own which I have nailed a few on. But the bottomline is in the normal debating on line certain words are as part of someone's rhetoric as their finger prints. For example: Toute' is mine and I have searched on it and it comes right back to me.
I have others too ...
Take pinging, fingering, rhetorical signatures, and a lot more you can clearly see who is who ... You know that from another stock.
Yes My wife who does not post has a computer so she can converse with her family. many families do have more than one computer. Those that do not it is easier to spot. Heck even the Yahoo games ahve families that talk back and forth through rooms to get their rating up playing cards.
It is a something most do not think about and the ones that try to decieve by trying to paint some one with a multiple alias is just a deceptive as the multiple alias and probably do have numerous aliases themselves.
I think in my 4 fours and tens of thousands of posts I have seen it all. Just have to ADAPT to each situation.
:=) Gary Swancey
Gary, nothing new here!
I even made a post on the avbc board awhile back about certain posters having the exact same typo's.(Right around the time of the ratings games) The only problem is I have never been able to carry it to the next level, and use the computer to do the tracking. Only some observations about typos, and common syntax.
Very interested to see how you have that system set up.
I have used a combination of similar typos, and message log spreadsheets over the years to figure out who I thought were the culprits. By spreadsheeting timelogs (time stamps for a particular post), and then overlapping them........I could get a pretty good picture of how a person just switches from one alias to another throughout the day.
Of course, in 2000, I noticed many of those suspects were doing something different because their multiple alias posts were becoming more inner-twined, and some of them even posted at the exact same times.(really threw me a curve ball, and I thought I had been wrong all along.)
Then one day you made that post about having all the different computer screens in your office...... remember I went balistic on you thinking YOU were one of them. I thought this was the answer......that they set their sweat shops up differently, with just multiple computers, rolling their chairs from one computer to the other.
Sure is a constantly changing game of cat and mouse!
Been thinking very hard about that BOP proposal. Love the idea. We just have to figure out how to make some cash with the concept. Have some ideas there too. I think there is alot of opportunity in the arena with all the deception going on.
Bird as the exposures get more and more complicated there is a syntax forensics that exist. I have talked about it for 4 years. Example: if I tried to hide under an aliase I will be discovered because of the syntax I use. Touche' = Toute" or "Another wrods, = In other words," and I have a lot more I use.
As you can see there are similiar and what I call rhetorical signatures. Today, I discovered one and I have spent the day search chat sites and even the internet for its use. "B-plan"
I could not pull up where this syntax was used (except in a company that uses it or in a URL). Now you would figure this was a common term where in fact, in all my searching only 4 chat messages contain this "b-plan" term only on RB under aliases that post on a dedicated thread.
Of course it is blown off but is it that easy to blow off. According to the Washington Post this is a valid synopsis.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24607-2000Dec18.html
Foster's breakdown of how he analyzes texts is easy enough to follow but hard to interpret for readers without losing some of its initial lucidity. My difficulties with translating his explanation may be related to one of Foster's key assertions: "No two people assemble words or sentences in precisely the same way." Our individual approaches to written communication -- the words, phrases and metaphors we choose -- amount to literary fingerprints in Foster's view, what he calls "attributional evidence." His own stylistic preferences are refreshingly free of academic jargon and rely heavily on self-deprecating humor. For instance, he observes: "Attribution is the one field within literary studies that requires one to state opinions, right or wrong, about matters of fact, and it is a wise attributor who peppers his statements with 'perhaps.' Scholars call this practice 'due caution.' The rest of the English-speaking world calls it 'covering your [rear].' "
Foster revisits several "cases" that he's worked on, including the search for Anonymous, author of the momentarily notorious political novel "Primary Colors" (Joe Klein confessed to the deed after initially denying it); the search for the author of the infamous "talking points" that Monica Lewinsky offered to erstwhile confidante Linda Tripp; and the pursuit of the "real" author of "A Visit From St. Nicholas." He also discusses, in roundabout terms, his work for the FBI. The feds approached him with a heady challenge that he found irresistible: "to develop a science of literary forensics, to adapt for the courts and, later, for criminal investigations, a methodology that was originally intended for the study of anonymous poems, plays and novels."
It's easy to recognize the similarities between criminal investigations and Foster's scholarly endeavors. Much as a detective or federal agent carefully inspects a crime scene, Foster scrutinizes "questioned documents" (QDs in his parlance) for signs of plagiarism, deception or other literary misdeeds. At other times, Foster's not looking for wrongdoing but simply attempting to solve a mystery, as in "Who wrote this?" To find out, he compiles a computer database consisting of the QD and anything else written by the suspected author. Then he compares the regular occurrence of words, phrases and constructions favored by the suspect -- a preference for which he or she is quite likely unaware. "The writer's syntax will usually remain fairly constant from one type of writing to another, whether it's a college essay, a letter to Mom, or a threat to kill the president," Foster tells us. "Give anonymous offenders enough verbal rope and column inches, and they will hang themselves for you, every time."
What is interesting is once you expose a poster with this syntax sluething they will immediately show guilt because their posts will change drastically in the cover up. They will be well written and done on a word processor. Then this makes the post even more difficult to pin to another poster that posts identical to another.
Thus after four years Bardology is a nice way to link posters to common syntax.
Just an observation
Gary Swancey
On Birds of Prey...
I've noticed a trend lately concerning my cybermoniker. So I thought I'd present a few bits of factual evidence concerning birds of prey.
Most raptors are not carrion eaters by preference. With the notable exception of the vulture class. Although many raptors will not shy away from an easy meal regardless of it's breathing status at the time, they will take the freshest meat available.
Peregrine Falcons have the strange predilection towards taking their prey in midair. They are the masters of the midair collision. They have even been known to attack other raptors in this manner.
While Dragon's are mythological beasts and therefore not subject to most of the accepted behavioral studies, legend has it that they preferred live meals...young and tender virgins were considered a staple of their diet. Although the occasional foolhardy nobleman seeking a fortune would often quell the pangs of hunger. I know of no depictions of these marvelous creatures partaking of anything other than their own fresh kill.
That's enough for now. Remember the famous last words of Sir Elmer of Fudd...
Be vewy vewy qwiet...I'm hunting fo' dwagon's!
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Smouch you can post thought provoking issues yourself. Wish you had time to elaborate on some items of concern. I think it would assist those that are ignorant to avoid certain pitfalls in the market.
:=) Gary Swancey
Hey Bird you will know you are hitting nerves by the personal attacks you draw on issues that can no longer be conveniently addressed or white washed.
As I have learned that which attacks me is probably someone I have exposed over the years and their obession is true vengeance to the ulmost degree. Their emotions run amuck in their posts and rarely can they defend the issues just convenient personal attacks.
:=) Gary Swancey
Smouch I just get tired of ignorance and naive people who refuse to understand the current situation in the market. When the market is dead as a whole their is no relief blaming some DDer on line. Punish the innocent so you do not have to face reality.
I agree about that newbie who does not understand convertible debentures or preferred stock especially those with an ACC. Guess he will when he tried to buy more that the convertibles are shorting or selling. Everyone has to pay their dues in this arena.
I read one that stated something to the effect of "Flexible Transmution where x=aggregate divded by y=lowest counter offer of the last 30 days."
I liked to have flipped because my search has now explained to the old metal conversions which is where transmutation was originally the proper rhetoric.
Oh well. How about that Transfer Agetn printing press?
:=) Gary Swancey
Contracted Independent Investor Relations for
CBQI & DTGI, compensated a monthly cash fee
http://www.marketex.net/compensate.htm
Dave, I aggree 110%!
Although with you always flying around looking for that dead meat, I don't expect you'll ever have your feet firmly planted on the ground.
We'll see how many of them change their tunes after an easy view of some of the archives. Just love all those expert technical analysts over there lately. Been fun watching the brawls. Reminds me of a street fight when I was growing up in the windy city.
Smouch
Smouch,
Gary *always* produces good thought invoking articles. I figure that he hears so much praise that if I pile any more on him he'll have to hire folks to carry around a newly enlarged cranial structure! Just kidding, I know Gary has his feet firmly planted in the ground...It's me you'll have to worry about!
Yes, I am having fun at the idiot's expense over on AVBC. There are just so many of them I don't know who to tweak next!
As for those defense techniques...they have been honed through years of practice. It also helps to have a little Wagner in the background when taking on the advanced intellect of the CAB (Character Assassination Board).
Stay loose and hang tight!
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Gary, "No Wind" was an excellent essay"......
during these times of tempers and patience testing. Just gives those who do their d$d more time to accumulate. The wind does always come back, and the mutanists get cast overboard, or court-marshalled.
"....and decoration of those who did nothing." That one sure instantly (I mean instantly), brought bill clinton to mind.
Birdofprey......I loved the exchange yesterday between you and the idiot who stated he did'nt care about cd's on the avbc board. Boy....is he/she in for a big surprize. Also loved your skillful use of the defense techniques you just published here the other day.
Software Maker Reports Counterfeit Shares
By FLOYD NORRIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/07/technology/07MIND.html
:=) Gary Swancey
(:>}))))))))))) Good one Gary!
OB
"No Wind"
The windless stock market has a scary stillness for there is barely enough breeze to even cause a small ripple in the sails. Dotted across this glassy market are all the different colored sails drawn high with crews standing-by ready to jump into action. Times are tense thus begetting stress laced with opportunist thoughts of mutiny.
Echoing across cyberspace, you can hear the cries of the mutineers as they cast blame on the still remembered due diligence and plan. As with most unfavorable times, the once harmonious crews now have to endure the imaginary play of endless free interpretations and ambiguity. Typically, these mutineers are the ones that have not spent one hour of research, analyzing or even have made one speck of preparation. Heck, they rarely can even state why they are aboard the ship. All they know is the captain and the officers of the ship are to blame for "No Wind."
What was once tolerable and acceptable during windy times has become a mutinous campaign bellowing total frustration. What was once nothing more than whining by the unscrupulous types has gained ground with their continual protests and "No Wind." The obnoxious reasoning for the lack of wind is because of the captain and officers, a human element should some how corrected the fact of "No Wind." Thus the cries of broken promises for money and favorable windy conditions recruit others frustrated by patience. But what broken promises for they are on board a ship that has done everything right but there is just "No Wind."
My father once told me, "Son, there are going to be times where you can have the best plan, the best sail boat money can buy, the best crew with all the knowledge, strength and endurance to win. But remember this one small element, if there is “No Wind” … you are dead in the water." -- William D. Swancey
In the distance you can hear their mutinous powerful words laced with anger, stress and strife. Negativity flows rapidly to recruit the numbers to blame someone for "No Wind." Supported by the self-touting credibility of pride on their right to voice concerns of fair play and repugnance of injustice, their banner is clear, "“There is 'No Wind,' never has been and never will be." Even keelhauling is to good for these rogues who did not plan for the condition of "No Wind."
Typically, at the end of the day the mutineers are branded the rogues and scoundrels they are, where the captains and officers emerge as men of integrity who responded appropriately to events as they unfolded.
In the world today, especially with the Internet as the manipulative media vessel, you can clearly see the deception of words that go against every bit of common sense that one should have within their capabilities. But the mutineers are will always be here to test the limits of human indulgence. However, there is a famous quote by an unknow author that states, "As with any new venture it will always go through the following stages: enthusiasm, complication, disillusionment, search for the guilty, punishment of the innocent, and decoration of those who did nothing."
:=) Gary Swancey
Bird of Prey, that one just earned you another bookmark!
Very excellent post.....especially if you're one with a somewhat hot temper or emotional at times. Then the only advise I would offer would be to be a lurker.
BASHING AGENDAS
Bashing Agendas are simple really. Bashing breakdowns into two different categories. The first being factual information and then there is an issue of falsehoods in interpretation and information.
How do you tell the two apart? Emotional content.
There are two emotions that dominate the stock market, Greed and Fear. where Bashing deals strictly on stimulating Fear
Bashing with factual information is someone who took the pain staking time to research the fundamentals and management. Thus they post the facts. No name-calling, vulgar expressions, personal attacks or character assassinations but rather a clear and concise representation of due diligence. It is plainly obvious the poster would not put money in the security because of the findamentals. (Findamentals are the not so pleasant negative fundamentals that have been found that some how has not made into the entire write ups of positive due diligence) The negative is expressed with minimal speculation and the poster is just making an informative post venting.
Also their questions are very solid and can be answered.
However, the relentless emotional basher whose post clearly contains no facts or even a solid underlying basis only “Bashing Cards” such as:
1. Pump and Dump Card = This is the favorite and typically the most used card. No proof other than a fall in stock price or momentum growing.
2. Reverse Split Card = This one is great for getting sells. These words strike fear in the hearts of investor.
3. POS / PAS Card = This is the art of Purposely Omitting/Adding Syntax to effect a negative out of a positive by twisting information.
4. Loss of Money Card = This is a favorite as they post the price is going down.
5. False Press Releases Card = Is basically used to put doubt on the information typically after the fact and the effort is to take the news release outside the time frame or corner to corner content of the release by convenient mis-interpretation.
6. Credibility Card = Believe me not the TA or fundamentals they are quick to tout they are always right.
7. “Goodwill” Attack Card = Use to discredit management typically the poster would make a better CEO.
8. Insider Card = They had a contact inside and know more than the public thus they are trying to save the investment community.
9. nsider Information Question Card = Questions that can’t be answered unless you are an insider.
10. Civil Suit Card = Almost as good as the reverse split card because it strikes fear instantly into the hearts of investors.
11. Cyber-Moses (Mother Superior) Card = Used to save everyone from an evil company.
12. Lack of Synergy Card = The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
13. Question Card = question everything regardless of confirmation ro verification,
14. Redundant Ad Card = This is typically “SELL! SELL! SELL!” posted repeatedly follows the advertising game’s logic of repetition
15. Antagonistic Card = Used primarily to attack and discredit the pro posters.
16. Chaos Card = Disrupt the flow of information. A negative talk site = negative public opinion
A bash is simply an intentional attempt by (mostly an anonymous) someone to negatively spin or twist certain facts about a company and/or its products to induce uncertainty, doubt and Fear to the sites reading community.
They do this for the purpose of:
1. Harming or libeling the goodwill (reputation) and public image of the company to induce sells or hinder buying pressure to affect the marketcap,
2. An emotional personal vengeful campaign against someone who is posting positive on the stock to induce sells or hinder buying pressure to affect the marketcap,
3. to induce sells and hinder buying pressure so that a short position can be covered
4. to induce sells or hinder buying pressure thus driving the price down and accumulate at the lowest possible point.
The various types of bashers:
1. Cyber-Mother-Superiors or Cyber-Moses out to save everyone (looking for cyberfame and a following)
2. A disgruntled promoter or consultant (didn’t get stock or a deal)
3. A disgruntled employee or ex employee (got laid off or fired or about to be)
4. A competitor bashing (strictly for competitive advantage)
5. A disgruntled shareholder that loss money (these types show up vent and leave)
6. A broker or voice for a broker or financial institution (looking to effectively gain and advantage on buying and selling the security for gain)
7. An emotional unstable poster mostly against some other Cyber-personality (vengeance)
Timing of bashing:
1. Certain Market Makers are on the bid
2. A Market Maker has the stock price “Boxed” or “Locked”
3. “Cross trading” is occurring more than trading
4. Stock calls are showing up in trading
5. Posts about orders being passed over or not filled at all
6. A news release comes out this includes bashing previous releases
7. Fundamentals are being discussed including verifications and confirmations
8. Developments are beginning to come into the light
9. During silent periods brought on mostly by using the False News Release Card not to affect investors but to get through to the management. Thus conservative releasing of information plays right into the basher’s hands.
10. Restructuring time periods
There should be no doubt that someone who makes their focus to bash a company is gaining something from all their relentless efforts and time. No one, I believe, is as dedicated to bashing and libeling a company and its investors/shareholders without first having an interest or agenda and already considered the ramifications.
If you debate or challenge a basher with facts or a solid underlying basis look out for the high school naming calling, character assassinations, emotional vulgar language and ridiculous out right lies.
Remember it is known in the market there will always be sellers, shorters, etc. but not always buyers. Plus it is easier to gets people to sell than to buy. However, bashing has a more solid advantage over the other side of the coin, the infamous falsehood positive, the PUMP.
Again, the gain can be the result of any number or combination of agendas. However, one of the biggest is to unfocus off a possible accurate concern and deflect the focus on something that the public eye can believe, focus and thus complain. This is proving to be far more extensive than the typical basher.
Hey, just my opinion but I could be wrong!
Gary Swancey
Excellent composition Bird ... Excellent... See you have done your homework very well. I am going to post that in the header as a good reference for those who dare to expose the facts and thus endure a charater assassination.
Again very good.
Gary
Survival Skills:
Defenses against Character Assassination.
If you have ever taken the unpopular position of pointing out the hardcore actual facts about a topic to any group on a message board, you have likely been the target of a Character Assassination attempt by those that were benefiting from the misrepresentation going on.
You don't, however have to succumb to the viscous assault directed at your online persona. There are a number of tools that not only can thwart your attackers, but also can even help further spreading of the truth you've exposed. These tools are not limited to investment related boards, they have been in use on many topics in my over twenty years of posting. At the end of this article I will include an example of these tools in action. Feel free to use it whenever you need to protect yourself.
Tool Number One: KNOW YOUR OPPONENT
This is both the simplest and most difficult tool to employ. The most common mistake is to color your opponent's comments with your own reactions. Review your opponent's posts without reacting to them. You should be able to see each of the weaknesses in the argument being made. Usually the biggest weakness is the absolute absence of fact. Everything will be innuendo and insinuation. From this the audience is supposed to infer the 'truth'. Be ready to take the position apart point by point.
Tool Number Two: STATE YOUR CASE UNEMOTIONALLY
Remove all passion, emotion, rhetoric and/or personal information from your post. DO NOT directly attack your opponent. DO NOT restate ANY of your opponent's points. Simply present your factual evidence. Your opportunity to take your opponent's position apart will come soon enough.
Tool Number Three: LET EVERYONE KNOW WHAT IS COMING
If you have done your homework for step one you can get very specific here. However the example below, though generic in nature will cover almost every possible opponent's tactics in character assassination. Politely apologize for the board having to put up with the nonsense that your opponent will dish out, but don't refer to your opponent directly. What will amaze you is how your opponent will deliver almost as if they take this post and check off each item one by one. As they do so it discredits them in the eyes of many and adds to your credibility.
Tool Number Four: THE NON-DENIAL DENIAL
This is the most critical step. Your opponent will invariably try to stop your factual presentation by appearing to deny without actually saying, "it isn't true". As an example I refer to the movie "All the President's Men" because one of history's most famous Non-denial Denials is issued by President Nixon when the Watergate Story is first broken. It is also in this film that the term Non-denial Denial is first used outside of a newsrooms inner sanctum. Essentially, what you are looking for is a statement like this…
"If you are inferring that I have done something wrong you are sadly mistaken."
On the surface this reads as a denial, but closer inspection reveals that what is really being said is this…
"You've got me but I'm not going to admit it."
I highly recommend you watch "All the President's Men" as they cover this topic quite well.
On a side note, one peculiar quirk of Message boards is that the NDD is often accompanied by an attempt to deflect your assertion of fact back to you as an attempt at some illegal or unethical behavior on your part. Be sure to point this out when you see it.
Tool Number Five: KEEP THE AUDIENCE INFORMED
As your opponent posts, respond unemotionally by pointing out the errors in logic, factual misrepresentation, the Non-denial Denials, and the personal attacks made by your opponent. NEVER respond directly to your opponent. Always talk to the Audience when pointing out your opponent's mistakes. At the end of your post you may (once you're more experienced) choose to bait your opponent into issuing another post for you to pick apart.
Tool Number Six: REPEAT AS NECESSARY
Remember an argument is intended to be a series of connected statements that lead to a conclusion satisfactory to those involved. Your opponent has likely forgot this, If they ever learned it at all. Don't fall into the trap of responding directly to them, that increases their credibility and undermines yours. It isn't easy to follow that sometimes but the effort to maintain that position pays big dividends.
In conclusion,
I wish you all good fortune in dealing with character assassins. They have a great deal invested in their positions and will stop at nothing to prevent the truth from being told. It doesn't help matters that so many sheep are more than willing not only to be fleeced, but to unwittingly aid in the fleecing new sheep. Our task is a thankless one. Furthering the efforts to improve critical thinking in others though will develop our own thinking processes.
This is an example of the post you might use in tool #3.
Ladies and Gentlemen...
I apologize for what is about to ensue. It appears that my logic has correctly deduced the situation. Since my detractors have no reasonable argument to combat my assertions, they launch the personal assaults upon my character, sanity, morals and intellect. Heck they may even begin to explore sexual inadequacy references or possibly attempt to question what my preference is.
I had hoped that I was mistaken in my assertion, however the proof is in the pudding. Left with the option of fessing up or attempting character assassination the Guilty will always choose assassination. For those of you that will read all of the upcoming vitriol please notice that an out right unequivocal denial will not be issued. As anyone who has ever seen 'All the Presidents Men' will remember, one of the key elements in the breaking of the Watergate Story was Nixon's *Non-denial Denial*.
As these are presented I will point them out. Of course they can outright lie and issue a bona fide denial. But that may expose them to prosecution for quite a few things should the truth turn out otherwise.
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
you didn't include in your article what the basher actually gains
"Survivor" = Patsy Enduring An Internet Inquisition
The Internet is upon us creeping into our lives and slowing but surely becoming a main part of social interaction. Internet chat rooms and message boards now consist of an array of people that are there to share and interact with each other about a similar topic of interest. Along with this assembly of different personalities comes all the challenges, debates, different perspectives, logic and intelligence. Opinions and views are hard to figure out because most of the time the underlying basis of experience is omitted. Even worst, one soon discovers this is a gathering of people who would normally never interact with each other in the normal course of life.
Thus from this elaborate mixture of humanity comes the ever present truth, people aren't interested in the truth and real justice. Only what is convenient and can be twisted to justify the events that have had such a shattering effect on them, especially financial. Saving Face is the primary motive. However, just who is the real culprit? Is it the one that escapes the long arm of justice by hiding secretively behind a pseudonym on the Internet with focused accusation rhetoric at some target? Unlike the witch-hunter, the target of the inquisition is most likely not hiding behind an alias and has fully exposed who they are in the real world and thus accountable and has demonstrated integrity and duty in their posting. You can even contact these pre-condemned personalities if you wanted to talk to them directly.
Since the beginning of time, there has always been those that make a living or have a purpose in life to play the not so straight and narrow for personal, religious, financial or political gain. But also these types are also the masters of casting blame by rhetorical impression management (brainwashing) of twisted falsehoods on someone who can be made to be the object of blame. Makes no difference if the target denies it or not, the point is to focus off the area of the real truth and establish the ultimate contrived frame. Thus by direct focus on the target and off the real culprits, a rhetorical Internet Truth can be established as an Internet Fact. Heck, even if the Inquisitor gets exposed they just give it a few weeks and resurface. This is a main function of a “Might Makes Right” Campaign when distracting away from the facts.
So who are the targets typically? Most of the time it is someone boldly honest, forthright, easily accessible, out spoken and above all who has disclosed who he or she is in the real world. These are the perfect Internet scapegoats, whipping boys and of course the fall guys to take the convenient blame for daring to expose a culprit or provide organized due diligence. It is easier to taint someone of reputation because you can do research on him or her to twist into an inquisition, than it is to focus on that which is already tainted or hidden behind a shroud of secrecy. Primarily this is because no one would have believed the tainted or the unknown, but would have followed the untainted of the inquisition.
For example: The best Pump and Dump stocks are the ones that have little or no information, thus the written word becomes the source of factual information by twisting the truth, the Lies. It is extremely hard to Pump-Up a tainted stock that is fully reporting because the opposition would be too cumbersome. This also works on the other side of the coin. A stock that is fully reporting is easy to taint through convenient impression management and thus easier to convert the public’s opinion to a negative. Once the damage is done the effects are carried forward by the disgruntled once positive public, regardless of the facts and the supporting due diligence. The Internet Patsy is the poor positive poster that provided due diligence and supported the stock. Kudos turned to Bricks. Typically, they are known in the real world and thus the perfect target. Painting the tape and the target negatively can be easily perform thus generate selling to cover a short position. If the inquisition and “Might Makes Right” campaign is effective, the stock price will move up just a little before sells begin and the short can cover thus the chances of a major run is greatly reduced.
Let’s face it, the age of the Internet Inquisition is upon us in a historical sense, which was and is today nothing more than an emotion, speculative railroading of someone(s) to blame for all that is wrong with the world, especially the stock market. The Culprits are fully aware that the only side the law is interested in is the unlawful lies to build up something in the public’s eyes for personal financial gain. However, the destroying of something for personal financial gain has not yet come into focus. Since this is the way the law thinks, thus the Inquisition can be effectively administered by framing the target to a Pump and Dump. But what about evidence to build credence? Simple to effectively establish a solid frame, just plant evidence at the target’s domain. In the stock market, the target’s domain would be the Internet chat site and the stock price. Thus by effectively manipulating the stock price downward combined with negative rhetorical impression management campaign to the public, the public’s confidence can be effectively brainwashed and the “Patsy” inquisition well established.
Now while the target is defending, which is a no-no, the chat site is not focused on fundamentals but purely the stock price, interest in the stock and relentless personal attacks on the Patsy. The only fundamentals will be those questions that are nothing more that requests for inside information supported by the logic that “We as shareholders have a right to know.” The realization is the knowledge of knowing the inquisition questions can’t be answered thus more proof speculative deception on the target. The Culprits sit back laughing at just how stupid, moronic and gullible people really are while they feel more and more secure they will never be suspected or discovered.
Another target is the poster through dedication and diligence has a track record of exposing hidden deception and brought it out to the public. Thus the exposed Culprits, out of vengeance, merely locate the target’s previous adversaries to assist in the Internet Inquisition.
To effectively organize an Internet Inquisition:
1. There has to be smoke coming from other sources other than the Inquisitor’s campfires.
2. The Inquisitor cannot resort to facts because the facts will not support them only Internet Facts, in other words fabricated innuendoes and solid effective twists on the facts.
3. Stay away from the filings if they can not be used to give credence to Internet facts.
4. Selective Rhetorical phases out of sentence structures that can be used to make a bold and confident statement of negativity, thus undermining the content of the sentence. (POS/PAS)
5. The Rhetoric of the Inquisition must flat out be a “Might Makes Right” Contest.
6. Manipulate the rhetoric so the inquisition never looks bad in the public eye and it must be powerful and traumatic.
7. Destroy the “King Arthur” and “Camelot” images thus the public’s perception.
8. Feedback is any ally turned nemesis, the more redundant name calling such as moron, stupid, fools, cronies or any other type negative will eventually have an effect.
9. Praise the conversion by anyone who was positive beginning to turn negative except the target, though typically the target is the one that finds something to actually be negative about.
10. Never allow the main inquisitors to be exposed, remain hidden at all costs. If exposed increase the personal attacks and name-calling by making it extremely personal with prejudice.
Red Flags of an Inquisition in process:
1. Name calling (sure sign someone cannot account for something)
2. Emotional rhetoric but rarely a fact
3. Negative predictions of stock price by the inquisitor
4. Flat out lies by the Inquisitor
5. Multiple aliases (especially conversations between the aliases, truest deception)
6. Strange stock trading in a timely manner to Inquisitor’s postings and predictions
7. Highly orchestrated and well planned Impression Management Rhetoric
8. Personal attacks of even the lowest standards
9. Vulgarity and Profanity
10. Intimidation coupled with requests for apologies
We are all possible victims of Internet injustice as long as the chat and message board media is controlled and used for propaganda purposes instead of factual information. One thing, I have learned personally, is that as long as the Inquisitors can remain hidden, the inquisition doesn't have to be coordinated even near perfection when the inquisitor have the tools of the internet media and law at their disposal, unlike factual due diligence. The constant inquisitions and growing number on each chat site by the continued media manipulation without any general public outcry, is sad evidence to this composition!
:=) Gary Swancey
Gary.....I believe that we could shout for equality and justice until we were unable to croak out another syllable, and "high finance" would still continue to have selective hearing. Banding together for mutual sharing/pooling of financial information can save us from costly, stupid investment decisions.....but collectively we don't affect the elephant any more than the flea crawling up the beasts leg with carnal pleasure on its little mind.
Still, every so often a bad guy gets caught, pays a fine or does a little time. In cyberland, it is d a m m hard to figure out who is good or bad, friend or foe. It is very much like the scripts used by the wrestling promoters. They can change the villain into hero (and back again) with the stroke of a pen. Posters can perform the same alchemy with the click of a key.....so who do you trust - who can you trust?
It is kind of a financial "Survivor" game that we engage in daily, but few of us realize that the game is mostly rigged and the cards are marked. But then again, investing is becoming more like betting every day, or is it the other way around?
Critical Thinking and Exposure with a Cognizant Basis would be a good summation. Here we are all trying to learn and help others learn to combat the big machine of the world. Facts and opinions with a solid underliying basis and even views but views most likely will be challenged.
Also rhetoric that is like an attorney's cross examination question like "Do you still beat your wife?" or the childish conversation control word "WHY?" that regardless of basis cannot be answered and is only an entrapment, will probably backfire on the poster. Setups are not tolerated, witch-hunting, name calling, accussations with documentation, witch-hunting and blame casting or any other type post that possibly relates to a "Poor-Me Syndrome" ... In other words post with responsibility that will help others as a whole.
Hope this lays it out fairly well but mainly we are trying to discover the evil forces and pitfalls. The only way to expose the mistakes is to do the due diligence and write a cogniznat opinion. Most of all this is an attempt to be a people's voice to shout we want a level playing in the world.
Gary
Hello tufcat333,
We converse on many topics here. Sometimes political, sometimes whimsical. Much of it centers around how people interact on message boards, especially investment boards. Also we discuss the essays on investing presented by the chairman or sometime on his other essays.
The only real big rule here is respect. Respect the other persons right to their opinion. No personal attacks, and do your homework, know what you are talking about. Cause if you don't someone that does is bound to correct you.
That said, Glad to have you here. Browse the posts, Chime in. Dazzle us with your own brand of prose.
Bird of Prey
Have you requested proper credit and offerd to exchange links? I've found this to be a great promotional tool for my site. We've got lots o' stuff that gets plagiarized.
Bird of Prey
LOL ... Canadian Plagiarism (at least some of my writings are there) but have been expanded on condensed.
http://www.fraudbureau.com/investor/101/
:=) Gary Swancey
Contracted Independent Investor Relations for
CBQI & DTGI, compensated a monthly cash fee
http://www.marketex.net/compensate.htm
Gary,
Thanks for the info. I think I understand why you are making this available to me. I hope that it won't be necessary. This stuff is interesting though.
BTW, Shipped $1400 today. Have about half that much tomorrow. Business is really picking up.
birdofprey
Bird of Prey
Thanks Gary!
OB (:>}))))))
Here is one you may not know about. Go "Start" and then click "Run" type in "tracert" spacebar then the IP number.
:=) Gary Swancey
Contracted Independent Investor Relations for
CBQI & DTGI, compensated a monthly cash fee
http://www.marketex.net/compensate.htm
Followers
|
16
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
484
|
Created
|
10/31/00
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator Georgia Bard | |||
Assistants Bird of Prey |
Posts Today
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
484
|
Posters
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Assistants
|
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |