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.
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.
Just realized I didn't address one other point in your post that I should've...
Talking about TRUST, what happened to my 86 e-mails that should no longer have been in your possession after being relieved from your duties at SI, along with other employees?...
For anyone who doesn't know what this is about, a brief explanation: A portion of an email I'd written a long time ago (years?) was quoted here on iHub and cited as proof of what a bad person I am. I asked for permission to quote from the emails that had resulted in the reply that was quoted here. That permission was declined and I was informed by the poster that it was his opinion I shouldn't be in posession of those emails. Although, really, just declining that permission would've been enough. Personally, I don't think people should disclose the contents of private communications without asking, and I hold myself to a higher standard by adding "even if to defend one's self".
So, you declined me permission to post the relevant emails in my defense and I complied.
Beyond that, it's none of your business, and if you feel that it is, take it up with my former employer.
Bob
Ken, I have deleted your posts as you provide no proof of your "factual statements"
This is not an allowable reason for deleting a post. Positive statements about companies requires no more "proof" than negative statements. And no less.
It's our fault that we haven't collectively notified all of the chairmen about that change in the rules. I posted it within my first few posts on the Q&A thread, but it's buried pretty deep in a long post. Hadn't seen very many people using that for post deletions, so we figured we'd handle it one on one for now. Any chairperson reading this should also read http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=74686
However, Ken, I saw the deleted posts and do agree with the deletions but for a different reason: Toward the end of them was a personal attack in which you called a member here a "paid tout". If you believe the other statements are true based on your observations, feel free to post them. But if you're going to state that a person here is engaging in illegal activity, then you need to provide proof. Otherwise, it's considered a "personal attack".
The rule of thumb is "Companies and insiders are fair game; other people are not."
Bob, Admin should refrain from Personal attacks and show the example
He who dishes it out should stand ready to take it. An "admin" is also a person, and as such isn't always going to be all smiles and cheerfulness when someone insinuates untruths about him in an attempt to either cost him his job or destroy the place that hired him.
But I've had enough of the whole thing. The old saw about swine wrestling comes to mind and I've got too much to do to spend time rolling around in the mud, which I don't like anyway.
is that Matt has decided to employ you after you were fired from SI... iHUB was a delight before you arrived and I believe it'll soon be a shamble at the rate things are evolving...
One last time, I was laid off from Infospace along with about 250 other people, mostly who had been with Go2Net (or so I'm told). To repeatedly say I was "fired" in front of people who weren't there and don't know the story is to repeatedly imply that I was discharged from my duties for something bad I did, which certainly isn't the case.
However, when a person who talks about chairmanship as if it's something for which people are normally compensated in one way or another is also the person saying my arrival killed the "delight" of the "job", well, I just can't take it too much to heart.
Careful with the spamming there.
That shouldn't be odd. I don't care what bad things you say about iHub and what someone did prior to my arrival is none of my business.
I just found it a bit odd that you'd refer to the chairperson role as a "job".
It's not even remotely accurate to characterize it as "far more than negative commentary". And the one post that was just quoted to you isn't the only one you deleted. You were basically deleting anything that poster wrote without judging each post on its own merits as the terms of service apply, and that's wrong.
One-way conversations are never productive.
Being a chairperson is a "job"? And a "reward"? Why do those statements sound a bit suspect?
By "a bit more strict", I mean that where some latitude was given for minor personal attacks on stock threads on SI, none is given here. In non-stock threads, I don't care what you do amongst yourselves as long as you let people know if it's too rough and you don't attack other people on the site.
Bashers camped out on the boards add nothing and only ruin the board. When you and I didn't agree on that, I decided to stay on the sidelines. I was a little surprised you gave the board to the basher, but its your forum and you can do whatever you want.
I invited all to come and post their positives and negatives and we would discuss them.
The deletions you were doing spoke far louder than the "invite", and have you checked out that board lately? The person you label a "basher" isn't even deleting posts that I personally *would* have deleted because of the way they went after her personally.
Has she deleted your positive commentary on the company the way you were deleting her negative commentary? If so, I'd say you have a case, but otherwise, no dice.
Bob
Copied your post to myself as a PM to remind myself.
That's an excellent idea. For now they have to be linked, but it'd be easy enough to have a user option to filter such pages and display either the image directly or the link, according to the user's preference.
Also, yes, the CFZ folks would be welcome here (same rules, if a bit more strict about them) but I agree that such a highly-trafficked thread would have only limited usefulness in one-at-a-time mode.
Just so you won't claim otherwise next week, no your account wasn't suspended for your saying I play favorites. I don't. I like a lot of people, and a lot of those people know it, but I don't play favorites with those people. Some of my best friends have been suspended.
Actually, I get that a lot and it's not hacking. A lot of websites include X10 ads in them. Annoys the heck out of me. They pop up in another window and you don't usually see them until you're exiting other windows.
And I guess I'd better refrain from saying anything about my purchases of any item that a company discussed on iHub might sell, lest I be labeled a basher. Imagine what I'd be called if I admitted to having bought a LOT of japanese motorcycles.
You call that "bashing"? Saying that I would never offer an opinion on any company?
That's a pretty ludicrous use of the term "bashing".
I guess I need to start adding something to my posts. Like:
GOOOOOOOOOOOO [ticker here] !!!!!!!!
Thanks.
Still, no opinion on the company nor will I ever offer one, but I have to say that though I'd probably never buy anything from the SkyMall catalog, we sure did enjoy browsing it and were quite tempted by a lot of the things in it. Sure, we might end up buying things we saw in there, but not from them. Which still isn't a bad thing for an advertiser there.
Somewhat on-topic: I'm looking into X10 to replace my existing video-based security system. Looks promising. The only part that looks like a potential problem for me is that the garage and workshop are each on their own meters, so they won't be able to use electrical wiring to communicate back to the house, although I might be able to get around that via our LAN.
Looking like I'll want to invest some money to bathe the whole area in infrared light, then have the garage and workshop cameras just communicate with the nearest computer, which would make everything available to the security machine in the house.
I'm not set up for infrared yet, and car stereos have been stolen a few times here and my CD's from my truck just a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the cameras did pick up the CDs getting stolen but the only stuff discernible is what the truck's interior light illuminated, which is basically nothing useful.
As I saw somewhere recently, you know you live in Missouri when you have security lights on your house and garage but never lock either one. I usually lock my truck now (hate to), but sometimes I forget. Fortunately, I don't think anyone's brave enough to start the thing right outside my house, since if I forget to lock it, the keys are usually in it too. Fortunate for them, because the thing would wake the dead and I'd be able to tell the police to look for a black truck with all the glass shot out. <g>
Yes, off-topic is a pretty common occurrence everywhere and perfectly acceptable up to a certain point.
But using incessant off-topic posts to keep hammering at something that is completely irrelevant to the stock and only to discredit someone's reputation in a way that has nothing to do with the stock or stocks in general is harassment.
If you've got something that discredits a person's opinion about a stock (like a track record of other bad calls), feel free to share it, as it's very relevant. But if your issue is with what someone does that has no relation to the market, you're just harassing.
Please cool it.
Question for anyone: I thought I'd read here that a SEVU product was advertised in SkyMall, but I couldn't find anything in there on my Vegas trip Thursday. I think my wife kept a copy of SkyMall so we could look later. Is it in there or am I remembering wrong?
I also wanted to check out the property out there owned by MPTV (no interest in the stock -- I just like confirming things I see posted when that's possible) but forgot to bring the address with me.
My perception of it is the same, but one step further. The chairperson of the board can select whether non-members of that board are able to lurk. I would expect that in most cases they'd want people to be able to. But sometimes not.
As for checking the cookies, you had mentioned that to me a while ago. Bottom line is that I really
did not want to do that. To many people use my computer.....
Then definitely hit the Logout link each time you're giving up your machine to someone else.
And if sharing the computer is a problem for you like it is in so many other households, it's really worthwhile to check into networking multiple machines. We've got about 5 machines here and nobody's ever allowed to touch mine except to connect it to the internet if it's not already there (it usually is 24/7). With Windoze98 or later, internet connection sharing is a piece of cake. And all machines are backed up nightly onto my tape drive. And all the MP3 files (I've copied all of my CDs onto my machine as MP3's, so we've got thousands of them) are available to every machine so we've got music everywhere we have a computer, including in the garage.
Personally, I use 100mb ethernet cards, concentrators, and Cat5 cabling everywhere, but I believe there are network adaptors available that'll communicate through your home electrical wiring. I'm sure the speed of such networks is very slow when compared to 100mb ethernet cards, but so much faster than the average internet connection that they will seem plenty fast enough.
grub
I really did have a point to this post other than wanting those 7's.
I'm a "quality grubber" and have no respect for multiples of 100, but I do value the "777" grub. Can't believe I missed it. Fresh from a trip to Vegas, even.
I'm fine with director counts not applying toward chairmanship limits for now. Actually, we're letting people slide on the maximum chairman number too until there's a larger population here. I don't want anyone spreading themselves too thin on the chairman thing because one of the aspects of it that's beneficial is that it adds enough coverage to those boards to make admining almost realtime.
I checked that box a couple of weeks ago and it's kept me logged in all this time. I don't usually like to do those cookie-based login holders, but since my password here is so difficult to type, I use it.
Personally, if I were strongly averse to staying logged in, but wanted to avoid the login problems for now, I'd keep that box checked, but manually log out (by hitting the Logout link) anytime I want out.
This was acting up for a while, when it was setting the chairperson ID to zero. The solution we talked about that should solve most of the login problems should've also fixed that. Did it?
Yes, after I'm caught up in this thread, I'm going to my personal inbox, then the deleted-posts screen, then my bookmarked threads.
Do you think for even a second that someone posting that only warm fuzzies are allowed here makes it so? C'mon. You know me a LOT better than that. Granted, a chairperson has limited power to at least temporarily see to it that only warm fuzzies are allowed, but if that's what they use that power for, they lose it. It's already happened once. And will continue to.
That's bad news? Why? Personally, I like to see anonymity protected on internet message sites unless a law has been broken.
A company got the info on 7 people on SI a while back and used it to "out" them, which I had a major problem with but it was beyond my control. The company did file suit, but it seemed pretty apparent the main thing was to strip their anonymity, which they did successfully, even though if memory serves, the company lost the suit and even had to pay a chunk of money to one of the defendants.
SI Admin (Jeff) is also a good guy. I don't believe for even a millisecond that he's posting here or that MechanicalMethod is him. His focus is on SI.
It means that though everything related to community issues is solely in my hands, Matt steps in to handle thing when I can't.
Normally, when I travel, I bring my laptop with me and work anywhere I can plug in, but this time I was in Vegas (did quite nicely, thanks) and no way I was going to do any work, so Matt filled in for me.
BTW, a few off-topic things about my trip:
1. My favorite game is 7-card stud (Circus Circus is the only place I've found yet that has it) and I did fair there, but the guy sitting to my right during one game Saturday got himself a royal flush. First one of those I've ever seen. He got a $100 bonus from the house for that.
2. My second favorite game is Caribbean Stud Poker. I have a theory that if you sit down with enough money to last a while, and if you bet *every* hand, regardless of what you've got in your hand (so you're betting on the dealer having a crappy hand too), you're likely to get up with more money. So far, it's proving to be true, but only if you sit down with enough money to make it through about 50 hands.
3. While playing Caribbean Stud this time, I saw the dealer get a full house twice. One time that was enough to beat someone at the table who had 3 queens and a big bet. Heartbreaking. However, I got a full house (tens over fives) once on Saturday night when the dealer had 3 kings. Felt great telling the dealer "That's not enough" when I saw the kings. <g> Full house pays 7 to 1 plus $100 if you do the $1 progressive bet, so I made $170 on that hand.
4. I always make money at blackjack. Was comparing notes with the guy who got beat out of the 3 queens and found that we both prefer Caribbean Stud and we go to the blackjack tables to make the money we lose at Caribbean Stud. Stayed up until about 4:30 Sunday morning (when my worried wife finally found me and told me I'd better be rich or dead) playing CS and blackjack and ended up making back everything we'd lost in slots plus $450, which I'm using Tuesday to add this: http://www.marsmusic.com/store/product_new.jhtml?prodid=12760&catid=238&skuid=0&_request... to this: http://www.sibob.com/office2.jpg <g>
5. This time I played a variation of blackjack in which you can place a $1 side bet and if you get blackjack, you spin something called the "Wheel of Madness". After watching it a lot, I saw it was a major winning proposition for the house, but I was only placing that bet when I felt I was a little more likely to get a blackjack (usually after not seeing many aces for a while but sometimes just "when it felt right") and was getting blackjacks at least half the time I placed that bet. The running joke was that I was placing that bet only when I wanted a blackjack. Eventually I viewed the wheel as nothing but a major distraction even though I was personally making a decent profit on it, so stuck with regular blackjack tables, including a stint of about 2 hours where I was the only one at the table with an excellent dealer who knew I always played by "the rules", so she didn't really need to ask whether I was going to hit or stand most times. We were probably doing close to 10 hands per minute. That was fun. Didn't have other players screwing me up.
Speaking of other players, there was a gal (about 70-ish) and her son at a Wheel of Madness table who seemed incapable of grasping the importance of hand signals for hitting or standing, and both knew zip about "the rules". For quite a while, she'd do things like splitting face cards or hitting 16 when the dealer had a 3 showing, and it'd work out for her and she'd amassed a lot of chips (which she eventually lost). The first time she got to spin the wheel, she yelled out "Come on you m***er f***er", which silenced the whole casino floor briefly then resulted in an eruption of laughter that started at our table. None of us could play again (including the dealer) for about 5 minutes while we tried to regain our composure.
Anyway, I'm back, and slowly getting caught up.
Bob
All:
I'm taking off for a long weekend starting about 1 or so EST today and will be back Sunday afternoon. I'm leaving everything in Matt's hands until then and when I get back, I'll catch up on everything that's happened since today.
Bob
In his defense, in the past few days that I've been observing that board, that hasn't been the case. We initially disagreed about how CoB should work in such threads, but for the most part for the past few days, his actions have at least been in line with my intentions.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
PS. Hi, stranger. Long time!
I restored that post a couple of hours ago but left the other one deleted.
That "Little JoeJoe" part is name-calling and it's got to go. I just sent you a PM to that effect.
If you're going to post in that thread, post about the stock, not the other participants. And for purposes of determining whether or not posts will be deleted, what he has said in the past here or on other sites about Janice is irrelevant.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
Way off-topic and I won't squawk if this is deleted, but:
other car is a limited edition Mustang SVT Cobra from 1994
This jumped out at me because I'm a car guy first and foremost. Especially Mustangs.
I like the 94 Cobras because that was the first year of the SN-95 body style (which I'm not particularly fond of) and one of the last two years for the venerable 5-liter pushrod engine. The end of one era (Fox platform), near the end of another (pushrod engine), and the beginning of another (SN95 platform).
There were 1000 convertible Cobras made in 1994 and their value seems to be in the 18-25k range. I didn't recall that year being a "limited edition" although the 1k production figures makes it look like it might've been, although it's comparable to convertible Cobra production for other years.
The really valuable ones are the ones with the matching removable hard-top. Ford planned on all SN-95 convertibles to have this available as an option, but very few reached the hands of owners but there were problems and they scrapped the plan. I know this because I was trying to buy one when they were new and the fact that they couldn't guarantee delivery of the removable hard-top was the deal killer.
You've already taken action on that matter by deleting the inappropriate post and warning the author, so no followup by me is necessary unless it continues.
BTW, no you were not suspended for the same thing.
If someone double-parks while robbing a bank, it's not entirely accurate to say they were imprisoned for double-parking.
the bylaws have an anti dilutive clause in it. This protects officers from dilution if a reverse split takes place.
I can honestly say that though I thought I'd seen everything , *that* is something I'd never seen before.
Kinda nice to know that despite being old and jaded, it's still possible for me to be genuinely surprised sometimes.
Disclosure: I don't have an opinion regarding this company and know nothing about it, but do know a thing or two about stocks in general and my commentary is based solely on that knowledge.
I haven't yet, so feel free to if you like. I think we should grab all the good ones (they're ALL good) from the past, too.
I remain a huge fan of Cashinisms.
Especially the ones that paint really bizarre mental images, like Alan Greenspan in a tu-tu and waving a wand while hovering over the market's shoulder.
Just wanted you to know that I'm not ignoring your posts just because I'm not replying to them. On many of them, I'm copying the links to myself so I can look at them more in depth when I've got more time and we're in a better position to consider more radical changes, but in all of them I think you're raising extremely valid points, and Matt and I have been actively discussing some of them, including this post just now.
Regarding the lack of value of restoring a deleted post, I disagree. I don't expect that anything approaching a majority of the potential readers of a post will have gotten to it by the time I review and restore it, but I don't have figures to back that up.
But my immediate goal here is to assure that the inappropriate deletions don't happen. As you can tell, it's right at the top of my list. Arguably, it would've been better to limit chairmen to deleting only vulgarity, threats, and privacy invasions and forwarding the others to me, but I don't (currently) think that such radical unempowerment (I can make up words too) is necessary or desirable at this time.
I feel that the application of it by a handful of people has been too liberal, but I don't want to get too conservative in response to that and unempower the many because of way it's been used by the few.
And I'm not saying that the people who I feel have been applying it too liberally are "bad people". It's apparent that until I started rocking the boat, they were either allowed to or firmly believed they were allowed to keep things "warm and fuzzy" if that's what they wanted to do.
Keep in mind, too, that what I'm wrestling with is the stock-specific threads. If a thread isn't specific to a stock, I see no problem with the chairmen insisting on "warm and fuzzy" or even insisting that each post in that thread must contain the word "purple", if they want. As long as it's applied consistently.
I just don't feel it's right or serves the community to allow capriciousness on the part of the chairman in stock-specific threads.
Bob
I haven't deleted any posts. Check the numbers. I stated that I would only delete obscenities and personal attacks. We've been having a civil conversation.
Just keep in mind that if you see something that's a real problem (obscenities, personal attacks, spam, etc), don't hesitate to delete it. I'm not even remotely averse to the notion of people deleting posts as proxies for me, as long as they're striving to use the same standards.
I do, however, expect to be able to give a bit of latitude in determining what's "harassing". I know from experience that a pattern of harassment that really does exist isn't always apparent to me even after a couple of hours of digging through posts.
But I do know that under no circumstances can a couple of posts drawing attention to genuine negative opinions, facts, or concerns can't be considered harassment.
How would you feel if I kept posting about you: "Don't hold your breath for SI Bob to step up - his money is safely stashed offshore"
How about posting what my reply to this was? I was quite clear on the matter. I said that, whether I liked the statement or not was irrelevant and that it shouldn't be deleted, and gave the reasons why.
Not currently, but it's been on my wish list. There won't be a lot of development until May. Then we can start going after wish list items.
He posted one message in each of those threads, and stated the most recent "factual" information that was available about them. You deleted one of those posts (which I just restored -- I hadn't noticed the deletion), replied to him at least in one case what you believed to be "factual" based on your conversations with the CEO, then came here and characterized his posts as "bashing" and issue what could easily be construed a veiled threat.
I'm not getting through to you, Joe.
One more deletion like that and you won't be chairing any boards here. That was very blatantly squelching negative but relevant information that was presented in a very acceptable manner.
And one more attempt to get through: Do not delete posts if the only reason for doing so is that you believe your information is more accurate than what the other person is posting. Disagree with this policy if you like, and debate it here, but don't cross that line again.
Regards,
iHub Admin (Bob)
That's an easy one.
Fighting them is the job of you, the user. That is a job that should not be entrusted to an admin who doesn't know all the stocks nor chairpeople (via deletions) who may have a vested interest in one side getting wider play.
You fight them over their statements. I nail them on things they like to do like multiple accounts and spam, but I (and chairmen) don't say "Your posts won't be seen because you're lying".