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.
<ggg> EOM
- Eric -
yes, time to move on gary. matt if you would like, you can delete this board. eom
Matt, this board's purpose was not to get rid of bob, but to only convince you that there was a group of people who did not like bob. I know it wasn't this board who made him leave, but it did make him feel unwelcome (which he was).
joe
Joemoney,
Let's make it very clear so we can drop this subject.
Your board did *NOT* cause Bob to leave. We (Bob, Matt) had a disagreement in principles. So he left.
MB
Personally I could careless about the past and Bob. I scanned the Q&A Matt has said to drop it and I agree. Time to move on.
:=) Gary Swancey
gary, bob had decided that he was not going to change his policies, so there was no other choice but to have him gone. he was too stubborn to be changed. eom
Joe- I really thought the purpose of this board was to discuss bob (and his policies) from a different perspective than what the si posse tries to force down everyone's throat.
No not at all.
:=) Gary Swancey
NO that was not the case it was to protest any changes to make this anything but the priginal concept of IHUB. Protest any changes in its operation and rules.
Bob employment has nothing to do with it only the admin of this site was in question. That maybe your agenda but it was not mine. I envoked Law 7 to stop the changes that I felt would be forth coming after the muscle flexing and suspension and termination of Francios. I did not want other victims nor for Matt's World to change to Bob's world.
:=) Gary Swancey
but arn't you glad he is gone? no more BS on the boards anymore. things are back to normal. eom
gary, bob is gone, that was the whole purpose of this board. to protest bob and have him replaced or just gone. eom
Succeed? I did not know there was something to succeed at. Bob was hired to do a job and the changes was what I thought we were wanting to remain as they were when we signed up for IHUB.
Bob's job was not even in question or a focus just wanting IHUB to remian as it was pre-Bob. I think you should remove that post as a personal attack considering that has nothing what so ever to do with anything.
:=) Gary Swancey
What a pissant
Well Everyone... We Succeeded. Bob is gone from iHub.
I want to thank all those who supported our cause, and I would like to thank Matt for keeping iHub the way it is sopposed to be, a friendly and welcoming place to be.
Thanks,
Joe
Yes, Gary. Unfortunately the cadre folded it's tent and ended it's siege before I could use that analogy. Just in case someone else may need it though I'll include it here.
The captain of the ship gives orders to sail to South Africa for he wishes to trade for South African goods. Some of the crew however think it will be better to trade with Brazil because they don't like the way South Africa does business. These crewmen plead with the first mate "The Captain is wrong! We MUST change course! Take over the ship and take us to Brazil instead."
IF the Captain has selected a loyal first mate the crewmen are thrown in the brig.
If the First mate is Disloyal you have a mutiny. If the Captain is successful in defending his ship the First mate would be hanged along with the mutinous crewmen.
Rules exist for a reason. Breaking the rules always has it's consequences.
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Captain, 1st mate, course, mutiny. eom
:=) Gary Swancey
Very Well Said!
David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com
Long post, content below links:
main link: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/hub_cats.asp?grp_id=6
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=130
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=132
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=129
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=125
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=124
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=122
main link: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/hub_cats.asp?grp_id=5
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=21
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=19
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/boards.asp?cat_id=20
home page:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/default.asp
I don't know that I agree with the negative assessments of ihub . If you look at the links I posted, these are the categories that are non stock related threads. Take a tour of the links, and see what threads were started, by who, and scroll down the threads and try and get a quick idea of their content.
IMO, recently there were a lot of threads that were started that really added nothing to the site. They COULD have started threads that were meaningful threads, and they COULD have made posts that were meaningful posts on those threads, which would have been an asset to the site, and made other people want to join and particpate at ihub. I dont think they did this. I don't think they helped ihub at all. But that's MY opinion. WDIK?
I saw ihub as a place where people could come who wanted to get away from the nonsense, disruption, fighting, harassment, and all the negative things that have plagued the other boards, and basically made them unpleasent to participate in.
I percieved the thread head concept as a means to achieve this goal by taking control, taking action and putting some limits in place, for the benefit of all.
After a while this would have or should have elevated the contents to become what people SHOULD be using the boards for, and that is honest discussion about stocks rather than all that other nonsense.
Would there be some abuses by some thread heads? Probably, but the thing is, no one as far as I know was stopped from from starting their own threads and people could have started threads and made them what the ideal should be, by using the concept properly. Did any of the detractors of the original ihub concept do this? I don't think so, but I could be wrong as I didn't check every thread that was started. So anyone that didn't start a thread that was run right or contributed to the overall benefit of ihub and it's memebrs that's not ihub's fault, that's yours.
FG ... The articles state 1 fired / 250 laid off. Only one can be checked on a termination slip. And that is all there is to it.
The day of the free reign of anarchy is coming to an end. All sites are beginning to enforce these anarchy "I can say what I want" & "Bad mouth all you want types" ... Anarchy never lasts long in our historical society.
You can't go into a Movie House and scream "FIRE" ... Only on the internet and that is coming to an end.
:=) Gary Swancey
Actually, you guys are missing the point...
He was "let go", as the Chief Enforcer of some 4 years seniority, while Jeff, a fairly recent appointment, as I understand, was kept on... Draw your own conclusions...
I have recently started 2 new threads on SI and Jeff has treated me fairly and very courteously, so far... But he has considerably reined in the Bashing Shorters free-for-all activities, that were the hall-mark of the previous Admin... As a result, you can now post on SI, without having the usual bunch of bashers rushing to harass you with impunity...
I am monitoring the posts numbers on SI, which have now picked up considerably under Jeff's new stewardship... In the last 2 days, they averaged 6,000 posts per day, whereas on the 11th and 13th, they were around the 3,780 mark...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=102666
JMHO, F. Goelo + + +
You consider that a "hot" story? I didn't realize that bob is like bill gates and the whole world is interested in his sucesses and failures.
(slap on forehead), what was I thinking?
you can put whatever spin you want on the situation that makes you happy, but I'll just go with what was written in the newspapers.
as far as emailing the reporter, I'M not the one that is whining about what was written, YOU are. If you have an issue with it, YOU take it up with the reporter , and give them a piece of your mind.
and finally, if you say that a reporters word isn't one to rely on, and that yours is as good as theirs are, why would I take your word for anything?
you're not going to change my mind about the issue, they wrote an article or two about it, and if it's good enough for bob, then it's good enough for me.
but shouldn't you be posting your views about this on bob's ask bob questions thread? he seems to only want people that support him and his views on that thread, and you're wasting a lot of good rah rah over here, when it might do so much good over there.
you're really not being very efficient.
Marty, sorry not doing the DD on an issue your pushing. Your determining to go with the reporters version and calling it "fired" is a prime example of the media's ability to maniputlate the public. You are too easily willing to accept what they say as truth, with out being willing to find the facts that verify it. That is exactly what the media wants to do. They lead the public in their opinions like hogs being lead to slaughter.
Lets look at the situation the reporter is in. They got a hot story. Their "by" line is going to be attached to it!! They are thinking about themselves.....what makes them as the author of the article get noticed. What will help their personal job review. What will the public take note of.
What words sensationalize the story best.....
hmmm let me think.....should I say.....laid off, or FIRED??
Which has more impact with the reader?? not such a tough question, your response to the use and manipulation of words proves it. To use the word Fired, has far greater response value than does laid off or permanantly laid off.
Here's my suggestion, most reporters these days list their email at the end of their column's. Why don't you email the author of the article and simply ask what their reasons for using the word "fired" vs "laid off" were. Maybe they have the answers you need.
Now in the mean time, I have some prime oceanside real estate I need to sell, can I interst you?? Trust me...my words as good as any reporters.
Okay let me know what you find out.
look, bob was a minor employee at insp. if he pulled a george costanza and boffed the cleaning lady on the floor, and that's why they fired him, do you actually think they are going to put that in the filings?
tell you what, you think what you like, and I'll go with the reporters version, unless they print a correction or a retraction..
Maybe someone should go back and do some DD.....
Find out what the company had to say about why 250 people lost their jobs...wonder what words they choose to explain the loss of jobs...
Bet you could find that information in their SEC filing.
Oh brother., this site is getting nuttier and nuttier. Now people can get your isp numbers or something, and bob wants everyone to be able to do all those silly graphics you see them posting. That stuff is just for people that want to impress their buddies. It ends up being where people start putting all kinds of weird stuff in their posts, and becomes a game of who can make one better. Then they start making it so you can't read their past or present posts by hiding them. Then it ends up where the site is just a place for these people to kill time by making horseplay with their friends, when probably they should be working. I thought they had special sites like
IamacomputerprogrammerdingdongandlookwhatIcando.org
for people that wanted to play around like that? I like this site, but I am not interested in all of that horsehockey, I just want to read the posts, and if a link is provided, I'll make a choice whether I want to use it or not, and besides all that silly stuff doesn't add anything, in the long run it actually detracts.
Thanks for that clarification. Still, it seems to me that the reporter wrote the words and could have used laid off if they thought that was the case. It's nothing to me, except that if he was fired he shouldn't say he was laid off. If he was laid off, then the reporters shouldn't say he was fired.
HI Guys,
Just thought I would drop in and shed some light on the issue of being fired or laid off. I think you missed a category. I beleive the PC term is "Permanant Layoff"
Here's the definitions as I understand them to be...
Fired...removed from job for not doing a job as it is required or removed for reason other than job perfomance.
Laid Off.....a temporary reduction in work force based on lack of work available for employee, can expect to be called back as work picks up
Permanant Lay Off....would indicate the person has been removed from their job due to coperate reasons other than job perfomance but due to company decisions, cannot be expected to be called back. (this would take the negative feeling away from being removed from a job, that the word "fired" would imply. Current buzz words.....cutting jobs, reduction in work force, employee restructuring......
Another thing.....at least in the state of Pennsylvania, an employee that has been laid off, Permanantly Laid off, or Fired can collect unemployment. Loss of ones job by any of those three means indicates that the employeed was willing to work but the employer no longer wanted or needed their services. I belive the one situation in the case of being fired, that an employee would be denied unemployment benifits, is when the employer has formally filed crimimal charges against the employee. Even if someone has been fired for "theft" the will still receive unemployment benifits, if action is not leagally taken against them. (I know this cause it happened in our company...we fired the guy, who admitted stealing from us. We fired him but did not press charges. He collected unemployment benifits from us.)
Unemployment companstion is not available to the employee that "quits" his job, indicating their unwillingness to work.
Below I have linked an article from the Washington Post about Amazon's cutting of it's work force. Take note, these people were LAID OFF....but they are not going back to work at Amazon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3722-2001Jan30.html
Amazon.com Cutting 1,300 Jobs
Retailer Cites Goal Of Making a Profit
By David Streitfeld and Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 31, 2001; Page E01
Amazon.com, the Internet site that defines e-commerce to millions of Americans, announced yesterday that it was cutting its workforce by 15 percent, or 1,300 employees.
"This was painful but very necessary for us to reach our goal of profitability in the fourth quarter," Warren Jenson, Amazon's chief financial officer, said in a conference call with reporters. That profitability, if achieved, would be on a "pro forma" operating basis, which doesn't take into account interest that must be paid on the company's $2 billion in debt.
Most of the staff cuts stem from the company's decision to shutter a distribution center in Georgia as well as its original customer-service center at its home base in Seattle. That center has been the focus of a unionization drive.
Amazon, which started as a bookstore but now sells a broad range of products including wireless telephones and paper towels, also reduced its revenue estimates for 2001 to no more than $3.5 billion from $4 billion. Jenson cited the weak economy as the prime culprit.
Some evidence of a slowdown showed up in the fourth quarter. Amazon said today that its revenue for the period was $972 million. Before the retailer "pre-announced" some results earlier this month, analysts had been predicting revenue of more than $1 billion.
Jenson and Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos stressed yesterday in a separate conference call, this time with analysts, that the company was making progress in proving the viability of its business.
"We have now validated that people will buy non-media products from Amazon.com," Bezos said. The question has become "How much of the worldwide market is addressable?"
The answer, he indicated, was just about all of it, as Amazon becomes "the earth's first truly worldwide retailer."
Employees who were laid off were naturally less ebullient. "Any illusions I might have had about the nobility of Amazon.com have been shattered," said Alan Barclay, a customer-service representative who was involved in a well-publicized but so far unsuccessful unionization effort.
Many customer-service representatives in Seattle had long worried that they could be the target of layoffs, in part because their city-based unit was among the most expensive to operate. The company also has customer-service centers in India, Grand Forks, N.D., and Huntington, W.Va.
Marcus Courtney, a representative for WashTech, a division of the Communications Workers of America, said "the number one issue workers were organizing on is job security."
Courtney, who was helping to organize the customer-service representatives, said he will ask the National Labor Relations Board to investigate. "Some serious red flags have been raised" by the fact that the only customer-service unit to be dismantled was the focus of union efforts, he said.
CFO Jenson said the unionization activities "had absolutely nothing to do" with decisions to close the center.
While layoffs and shutdowns have quickly become a staple of the slumping dot-com economy, Amazon has mostly escaped unscathed. Last year at this time, 150 workers -- 2 percent of its staff -- were let go.
Bezos said yesterday that a trust fund was set up with $2.5 million in Amazon stock. It would be distributed to the laid-off employees in 2003. "If we do well, they will benefit alongside us," Bezos said.
******note remainder of article is accesssible from the link********
Hey he does not have a problem with it so I don;t but I got news you if that came out on me and my termination slip sttated "Laid Off" someone would have a serious problem on there hands. You can only check one.
:=) Gary Swancey
The fired vs. laidoff goes to the unemployment office. If you're fired, it's my understanding that you cannot collect unemployment. That's a whole 'nother issue, though. But he needs to get with those reporters and either have a retraction or correction made, or the story stands as it is written. He was fired. The reasons for the firing people can speculate on, but that part is the gossip part. Any prospective employer can inquire about an employees history, but nowadays in the litigation society we are, the previous organization usually never responds adaquately (unless they bring criminal charges LOL) because of possible lawsuits. In bob's situation, the public's impression was formed by the news articles, (not by people on message boards)and IMO they clearly imply he was fired as opposed to being laid off. My reasoning is that the reporters used those words. If they wanted to say laid off, they would have.
I am here also because I have been asked to leave the Q&A thread. Seems but has a moral issue with certain things and thus wishes to evoke his morally on IHUB.
Also the Fired vs Laidoff only one can be marked on a termination slip. the sentence says that basically amid 250 were laid off 1 got fired.
But interpretation but someone is lying in my opinion. If his termination is "Laid Off" then the "Fired" is a falsehood.
Again you can only mark one box that I am aware of in my experience.
Will we be Matt's world of Bob's World? Cliff hanger...
:=) Gary Swancey
This may be a long post.
I am trying not to post on bob's threads (that's why I am posting this here) because I was getting the impression that he considered my posts a disruption. I also felt that he was trying to give me a message that if I continued to post on his threads, I would be terminated from the site. I can understand a person being not allowed to post on someone's thread, but I don't think termination is the answer, if a person is banned from enough threads, they'll just leave on their own, eventually.
I have been reading his posts about his being fired from si or laid off. It seems to me that the reporters' used the word fired for a reason. They could have said that he was caught up in the layofffs, but they said he was fired amidst laysoffs. That is a little different, they way I am understanding it. Now he says he wasn't fired for deriliction of duty. Well, that may be true. But there is an in finite amount of reasons for a person to be fired. That's just one of them. What's my point? Well, I am looking at it like the rationalizations that people give when they are fined by the SEC and say they never admitted guilt, they plead "nolo contendre", (no contest) This is not a proper presentation of the situation. "No contest" in the eyes of the law is the same thing as guilty. A person generally pleads no contest because he knows he's going to lose. It's as simple as that.
These explanations about not pleading guilty, therefore they didn't do anything wrong are merely a person trying to avoid reality. In bob's case, he needs to confront the reporters and demand a retraction or a correction, otherwise the story is "he was fired".
As far as his handling of punishments, people are starting to get suspended, and the members are getting an idea of what behavior results in what punishments. cousin shorty got three days for spamming*, I believe. So people that spam should expect to get no more than three days for their first offense. If they get more, then it's understandable that they will be angry. * or whatever it was actually labeled.
Now recently there was someone that was posting code in the posts that totally caused problems. So people should be wondering what was done about all of this, and what action was taken. Now we would have an idea of what to expect if we do things that 'screw up" the site.
That would come under the header of 'fairness" and 'biased" behavior in punishments.
The Post That Started This Thread.
The following was written by Gary Swancey. Thanks Gary!
"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"
Joe you are not alone in your anger. GRRRRRRRRRRRR!
:=) Gary Swancey
The post to which I'm replying needs to be left intact for a few more days. As much of a problem as it is for this thread while it resides here (apparently takes extra mouse clicks to get to messages preceding it), it's causing far worse problem for me when it's deleted. I'll re-delete it when it won't be within the 50 most recent deletions.
It's REALLY not that important, but it's the type of thing that certain people will focus on to attack you rather than just trying to to point out that you might want to correct it. One of the things that people who take an opposing viewpoint of some of these self appointed interent guru's must be careful to do, is that they must make heroic efforts to never mispell a word, or use a word improperly. If they do make any of these "cardinal sins" it enables these people that don't want anyone to have a dissenting opinion about THEM to launch their well observed barrage of posts of derision about a posters lack of abilities in the construction of a "proper" post. This is merely an attempt to confuse the issues, and to get so far off track of what the original post or idea was all about that people might as well talk about tomatoes. One thing that people NEVER have to apologise to me about is mispelling or punctuation errors, as long as I can understand or at least think I understand what the post was intended to convey, that's all that matters to me. I am educated/mature enough to make mental corrections on someone else's posts as I read them, if I have to. And it's unnecessary for me to try and make someone look bad by ridiculing something that is so unimportant. These posts aren't business contracts where one mispelled word may nullify the entire contract, they are just thoughts people have about things, that can change from day to day depending on what happens after a post is made.
oh, lol, sorry marty. I wrote that half asleep when i woke up from a mid day sleep, i was angry and not making any sense. sorry, lol. eom
Joe in your ibox, you need to delete a word.
"This board was created because admin Bob has created his own little world and the opinions of the real iHub members must be expressed. We have rights to our own opinions, and this board is meant in no way to harass, degrade, or reject admin Bob."
"and the opinions of the REAL ihub people".
You need to delete the word "REAL".
fwiw, you also may want to rethink the part about harass degrade or reject, and just leave it at we have rights to our own opinions about bob.
It's not to say that i am advocating doing those things, but anything that is said that is negative about bob is basically a rejection of some aspect of bob, and the people that worship him are going to think that it's both harassment and degrading to him no matter what. That's just human nature.
i doubt if my being the director is a good idea, people are just going to say that you've chosen me, and I accepted because I "hate" bob. While I don't hold bob in as high a regard as some others do, I certainly don't hate him. In the first place hating someone takes up too much energy, in the second place it's too time consuming, and in the third place hating someone means that they have power over you. there's an old saying "hate consumes the hater".
i do support your intentions here as I think I understand them, I think you just want a thread that people can be critical and not worry about any repercussions. The thread bob started about it is useless now, it merely consists of nonsense, and
IMO it was never really meant to be anything more than that, anyway. who would take a thread like that seriously, it was started by the very person that people are supposed to be critiquing. LOL LOL.
Bob, I thought this WAS the thread Joe Money started.
"Joemoney started a new thread where only negative opinions about me will be allowed. Go there."
If you change requirements about being a member of IHUB, make it public, and make it for everyone..
"I do, but here's my reply to this anyway: The people whose names are on my paychecks don't tell me how to do my job, so I don't see why you should think it's your God-given right to do so and I find it more than a little offensive."
I don't understand your response. You find my questions a little more than offensive? What in the world do you think people find your behavior? btw, "god given right"? Just exactly who and what do you think you are in the scheme of things? This is a message board for pete's sake,if you don't understand that that's all this is, I feel sorry for you.
"Oh, so we're back to ignoring the fact that you shouldn't even be here at all, but I gave you a second chance and let you back in, eh?"
Are you saying that matt did NOT say that the situation was a suspension for two weeks, but rather a termination??
If you understand that you are incorrect about this, then you will understand that you did NOT do me any favors, and that I had every "right" to post here, after fufilling the two week period, which I DID..
"But understand this: If I wanted to boot you off the site, I wouldn't be "looking for any excuse". I would just do it. Do you doubt that?
I wouldn't need an "excuse", but if I did, you've given me plenty. Including your stubborn refusal to quit disrupting this Q&A thread with your constant '"issues" with me."
Bob I don't doubt that, that's how you handled everything at si, , you terminated si into the ground. And fwiw we're not even ON the Q&A thread, we're on the Joe Money thread. you had the same arrogant attitude when you worked at si, and look what happened, you terminated enough people that almost EVERYONE left. You win nothing by terminating people except to build your own ego. What are you going to do, poof everyone that disagrees with you in a manner that you feel is okay to do to everyone else but not you? don't say anything negative about bob, he's the big shot web guy. he's worshipped by people that think they are a charactar in a book, by people that think 'grubs" are important, by people that measure a persons value based on whether or not they answer a call to "battle' on a stupid message thread, by people that offer to send airplane tickets to perfect strangers in order that they may meet in a boxing ring, not really knowing whether or not the person they make the offer to isn't really some guy that just got out of prison for killing people that sneeze too loudly, are you for real?
"Inapropriate displays of disrespect"
bob what is it that you do that makes you think you should command all this "respect" for? This is a message board bob, no one is going to be cured of cancer here, no great scientific discovery is going to be made here, no olympic gold medals are going to be won here, it's just a message board. I'm sorry that you don't grasp that reality, but bob that's all it is.
And by terminating me just because 'you can", not only says volumes about you, it sends a message to members that you're a nut. bob the dr stranglove pushes the poof button on another member, as he stokes his cat..who's next? is it you? is it her? is it him?
Oh and bob, when you brought up the posting part the first time, even though I didn't understand what in the world you were whining about, I posted on the chag thread.
"Now take it to Joe's thread. Feel free to copy this message to that thread and reply there. But I'm not tolerating any more of this nonsense here."
Don't worry bob, I won't post on your bad bob thread any more, and I won't post on your bob q&a thread anymore.
I'm just going to sit back and see if I am right about you or if you're right about you, and the effects you will have on ihub. I think that under your stewardship this site will fare no better than si did. Because I think that you and your "friends" are at the root of the problem, not the solution.
Go back and read my acceptance. My concern is not Bob it is the IHUB concept. I do not care who is in the position I will be there watch dog and I will be skeptical and I will test their presence. The bottomline is IHUB.
Now if Joe wants to remove me as a director that is fine. But nothing is locked in concrete. Not with me anyway ... I pick my battles very deliberately.
Bob is my watch dog and I am his. For a week now I wanted proof and he gave some the other day and he gave even more today. I am not an advocate of anarchy and to continue to bait Bob and test his agenda would show that I might be because I would be the very thing I cannot stand.
This is Joe Board and it is up to him if I stay or remain. I will honor his decision with no hard feelings. If I have something against Bob I will take to him anyway as he will me.
:=) Gary Swancey
Odd. I really thought I was replying to that post in the Q&A thread, but apparently not. My apologies for that misunderstanding. All other points raised in my post still apply.
Gary,
Am I correct in seeing a change in your attitude with regards to Bob??? If so could you please explain why?? If not, could you explain the recent posts where you and he seem to be in agreement???
Here's why I ask.....
When this thread was started one of the requirements for being a director was "to share similar opinions with other members who are not in favor of Bob's presence." as stated by Joe in this post.
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=101239
For the reason JXM turned down the offer to be a director, inspite of JXM's feeling that he could unbiasedly moderate both sides of the issue.
On the other hand, you accepted the offer to be a director. With this statement.....
"Joe if you feel that you and I will have a synergistic relationship and we are both on the same page then I would be honored." As you stated in this post.
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=101377
I agree but I am not the Chair. I believe Joe has a right to a board and he should make the decisions. BTW I have posted Bob's responses to me as the replies to the article on VOICES, which I wrote which spawn this thread. But I do not want VOICES messed up ...
:=) Gary Swancey
From the header: This board was created because admin Bob has created his own little world
From your last message: to discuss and track the growth of IHUB under Bob. Open discussion. I do not like having any thread dedicated to bashing or character assassinating.
Then you should change the header.
I'm not so sure that many people agree with the first statement.
Hey ZAP Badbob and keep this one to discuss and track the growth of IHUB under Bob. Open discussion. I do not like having any thread dedicated to bashing or character assassinating.
As long as there is an underlying basis then the post should remain and be answered. No fighting or sly wording ... track the progress.
But that is my opinion ... BadBob to me should me the axe and the ticker here changed to WatchDog and the title to anything that does not include Bob's name. Unless he is going to chair it.
:=) Gary Swancey
Why would your post be deleted? Has a solid underlying basis to it.
:=) Gary Swancey
ZAP it Bob... or atleast take out the ticker of IHUB.
:=) Gary Swancey
There's already the BADBOB thread. Why is another necessary? Hasn't this subject been beaten to a faretheewell?
Again, even though you said you're in a quandry about it, you didn't answer the question of - If you allow a thread that bashes/criticizes you, will you allow threads that are critical of other people - or for that matter, enterprises?
Certainly agree with you that a thread like this will do more good for you rep, afterall, most of us can read and separate the chaff, as it were.
(for those who need a definition: chaff: trivial or worthless matter)
Joe,
Please note, there was not a problem with the board. The problem was with your knowledge of how IHUB works.
Personally I thought that your accusations of what happened to the early post on this thread, were a good indication of your issues being more related to bashing Bob, than they were about protecting IHUB from Bob. I say that because clearly you did not know enough about IHUB to know how to find posts that no longer appear when you click on the Subject title. I honestly thought that you would have/should have known that, if you were so into they way IHUB works.
(I expect my post to be zapped...but I have kept a copy of it.)
All of course.....JMHO,
Neenny
Matt thinks I should zap it. I don't want to. In my mind, changing the title removed a lot of the "personal attack" element of it. But to tell the truth, it's a bit of a quandary for me and I'm not sure whether to zap it, or to let the activity in the thread itself speak for itself and the motives/credibility of the participants and the reportedly large number of like-minded folks.
At this point, the thread appears to be doing my rep far more good than my deleting it would. LOL
Followers
|
7
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
88
|
Created
|
05/11/01
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderators Georgia Bard |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |