is happily being the wheel rather than a rusty old spoke
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.
See my edit. :)
although a free subscription for a year
Reminds me of an old Supertramp song. <g>
I don't know how well you know eviltweety
I didn't at all, and I just re-read his posts and it was definitely a case of mistaken identity. I'd incorrectly ascribed to him the statements and conduct of others, and I apologize again if he's reading this.
Italics are edits to correct gender confusion. It's almost like I'm on a *mission* to tick the guy off! hehe
As long as the topic was something other than CMKX it is decent enough from what I read of it.
Very true, and I'd made the same observation earlier. Don't remember whether it was Mach or Matt I told.
On that note, again, I think if Admin would allow one general purpose, all stocks, discusion board, moderated by a non partisan person, who has no agenda, some problems may be solved.
I think that's a worthwhile experiment and if Matt's game, so am I.
I believe this board was an experiment that simply didn't go well. I wouldn't be averse to repeating the experiment while changing some of the conditions, and I think that having a moderator and assistants without a vested financial interest in the discussions, but a willingness to remove only spam and personal attacks would be a very worthwhile experiment.
However, that won't please everyone. And that experiment, too, would have a good chance of failing as the "gimme a private board and give it to me for free because I'm entitled" folks would eventually raise quite a ruckus that people they claimed were "paid bashers" were being allowed to post.
But I'd be willing to give it a try and see what happens, as long as we're quicker about pulling the plug if it needs to be pulled.
there was a black billboard above the track that had the "Got CMKX?" slogan in white letters.
Color me confused. I thought it was illegal to advertise your stock (as opposed to your company) unless you also made sure only accredited investors ended up buying as a result of your advertisement.
Or does that apply only to private companies?
I'm not even remotely well-versed in the morass of legal burdens under which public companies must operate.
I apologize if I mischaracterized your posts and I believe I've done so.
Blame it on age and there being so much dialogue, I too easily confuse who said what.
You know, Pullmyfinger, you'd have done better to discuss reinstatement of your account with Matt rather than create this new one. I know he takes a very dim view of multiple accounts.
Bob's a moron who doesn't have the nuts or intelligence to fend for himself. Everyone, in the 'community' knows that, so why don't you ditch the prick?
"Everyone"?
I'd think that as a person who "invests" money in the stock market, you wouldn't engage in bad habits such as inappropriately using absolutes.
"Everyone" is far from an accurate term. As many messages as I'm getting publicly, I'm getting a lot more privately along the lines of "About damned time! Glad to see you grabbing that bull by the horns."
Although I didn't start out grabbing horns. Until finding myself the target of TOU-violating personal attacks.
Oh, and speaking of "nuts and intelligence" to fend for one's self, I wonder what you do for a living. Self-employment while responsible for the financial well-being of a family is about the ballsiest endeavour I can imagine.
Anonymously attacking those who do is more chickenshit than ballsy.
BTW, is the fact that you're suspended Matt's doing or did you just not go through the email verification process? Dare I hope Matt is back and ready to dig in to the support queue?
I will, of course, be changing your chosen name.
Don't even get me started on Ignore! LOL
I poured so much work into that feature, only after plenty of reassurance from the people who wanted it (and wanted it for free, mind you) that it would solve all the problems they had with posts they didn't want to have offending their eyeballs.
I told Matt it would be a matter of very little time before it would be as if the Ignore feature didn't exist and the same people would be clamoring for heads on stakes rather than the ability to poof them out of their personal universe.
I was right.
And soon this board will be history............
If so, the site will just have to limp along without it.
I'll be particularly interested in the nature of your participation next week. Hopefully either absence or the kinds of quality posts you seem to think were the sole domain of this board.
Bob, I want to bring good DD to the board and make money by investing in stocks taking a long position (whether it be short or long term). I work for no MM or investing company and invest on my own.
That's a good way to sum up why I haven't already made this a Premium board. After everyone's vented for the weekend, perhaps it'll become a good generic DD board again next week. Perhaps not.
It'd be hard to convince me that's impossible with Mach's initially self-imposed then later earned and enforced absence.
If this was really a good board that benefited all of its users without unwarranted deletions it should continue to be that.
Oh, was Mach booted from it to begin with? I thought he left for greener pastures of his own accord.
Are you sure you're blaming the right people for the evils you're perceiving?
A more stringent application of the "Attack the post, not the poster" theme. At face value, it looks desirable but not very practical in terms of the amount of work it'd involve. And though I want discussions to be civil and both sides able to speak their piece, I also don't want us to be overly oppressive about it, which that could be.
There's a middle ground and I agree that a LOT of people have strayed way off of it.
Hmmm... I hadn't even noticed that before. That much of the "I'm entitled to such and such and you're denying me it" noise is coming from FREE members, most of whom having posting histories more of the "noise" than "signal" variety.
It's a product of the dot-com bubble. Companies who wish to be viable as companies are still fighting the headwind of the sense of entitlement fostered by a bunch of failed dot-coms who'd spend any amount of their investors' money just to get eyeballs as if nothing else mattered.
Also, with many many bashing boards all over the net, does one board on IHUB that wants to disucuss DD without obvious bashing pose this much of a threat?? Is there no room for such a board here, out of the many you tout are at IHUB?
No, there isn't room for such a board. Not for a board that allows only positive things to be said. That does everyone involved a disservice. There are other venues where people can have cheerleaders-only "discussions". iHub isn't one of them. And it doesn't owe it to you or anyone else to become one of them when there are so many alternative venues around that welcome that kind of thing.
The board was fast becoming a haven for real DD and good picks.
It had periods of that, and periods of unacceptable behavior.
I thought it'd cleaned its act up a LOT of late, but seemed to really take a dive when CMKX was suspended.
But if you think Mach's posts to me were acceptable and should've been tolerated, we very strongly disagree.
What he said to me, I wouldn't say to someone in the street, let alone in their house.
Neither company appeals to me in many ways. Am I part of the 8-4, 4-11 or 11-6 shift of bashers of these stocks? Of course not, why do I care? Why would anyone care if they don't own the stock?
Altruism.
If, as you seem to indicate, you know that a couple of companies are scams, and you encounter baseless hype about them, you should counter it with a dose of reality.
To some people, remaining silent while people get taken to the cleaners by companies whose only real business is printing and selling certs while lying to their shareholders is tantamount to donning the uniform and waving the pom-pons.
You would only bash stocks you don't own if you have a shorting agenda or are being paid to do so.
If I repeatedly claimed that 1 plus 1 equals 3, you wouldn't disagree unless someone paid you to do so?
If you got burned by a company (I'm not referring to CMKX, as far as I know) that fostered a belief that few "real" shares were in existence and that there was an enormous naked short position and you later learned that there wasn't a short position but instead the company was lying about how many shares were out, then you later encountered the same pattern appearing to repeat itself in another stock, you wouldn't say anything about it unless someone paid you to do so?
That's sad to think that there are people who would stay quiet on information they believed could save people money (by selling or at least not buying) unless someone paid them to speak up.
One would think that'd be self-evident. And the terminations from this board have been a direct result of personal attacks. Their posts remain because if they were deleted, I'm sure some would claim the personal attacks never occurred. Personally, I prefer to leave evidence in-place.
I used to tolerate it on SI when it was directed at me, considering myself a sort of "heat sink" so people wouldn't direct their vitriol at each other as much.
One thing I did learn from Matt is that we shouldn't ourselves have to tolerate personal attacks, especially in our own house.
By the way Mach, I'm sure Bob simply overlooked the fact that your board became a top 10 board for reads in around 6 months, and a top 5 board in nine months.
Might, or perceived might, in this case, doesn't make right.
Well, there we agree 100%. And I agree with Matt 100% that multiple boards per ticker shouldn't be a way for people to avoid having to be civil while disagreeing in-place.
But if everyone could agree to that (beyond their cursory "agreeing" to it as a condition of using this site), all anyone would see of Matt is his spanking spammers between posts about motorcycling, and all anyone would see of me is the occasional announcement of a change in how we're doing things, a new feature that's been added, or a bug that's been fixed, in between my posts about cars and motorcycles.
When I asked for a link to a "pure basher board", though I considered it rhetorical, you shouldn't since you posted it as a true statement. The reason for my asking is that if there's a board here where only negative opinions about a stock are allowed and positive opinions are being deleted only for being positive opinions, I want to know where it is because we don't allow that any more than we allow positive-only boards.
There should be boards that are POSITIVE only boards
Well, we disagree. And the rules (one ticker: one board) forbid there being one board for those who love a stock and a separate one for those who dislike the same stock.
I've suggested allowing multiple boards per stock but Matt opined that this should be a place where only one board per ticker is necessary because the rules of engagement call for civility, which implies civil give and take between people who disagree, and I admit his point is a darned good one.
it is only fair look at all the PURE Basher boards
Provide a link to one. Where only bashers are allowed. Just one would be enough but you did use plural "boards" which implies at least 2, and "all" which implies more than 2.
Okay, that's definitely more than enough from you.
His account was terminated for a rather egregious personal attack.
I take it you didn't educate yourself.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/Terms.asp
Educate yourself.
You pissed in the wrong bowl of Wheaties tonight, dude.
looks to me like Matt needs to re evaluate his help!!!
I'd love to know where you got the impression that I'm Matt's "help".
Matt, any comment on Mach's comment???
Oh one other thing you are saying my site is a few hundred $$$ site while this one is a couple hundred grand, hahhaha people are not that stupid!
Oh, they certainly can be precisely that stupid. Like those who, for example, call someone a liar when they haven't personally developed a comparable site. And a new forum on a site whose total pageviews since inception amount to what this site gets in a 4-hour span, and takes nearly a minute to load can hardly be called a "comparable site".
I didn't say your site is a few hundred dollars, btw. I haven't seen it. I've seen cmkx.net but not your site.
Surely you're not suggesting this software was bought off-the-shelf and we're able to do 1.5 million page views per day on some POS machine bought at BestBuy.
Have a delightful evening,
Have a delightful life. Elsewhere.
I've experienced the same. I used to trade SYCR and mostly used profits to increase the size of my position. Most days, I owned the stock.
When I tested software of theirs purported to dramatically increase the speed of my computer, and reported before and after results for a number of scenarios (the software measurably and noticeably slowed it down), I was immediately labeled a basher. While holding what was likely a far larger position than the people who called me a basher.
Definitely wasn't HCCA. That's one I remember very well. They were into mining, chiropractic clinics, recording studios (even did two separate PR's nearly a year apart announcing the acquisition of the same Memphis (?) studio).
As one of the touts told me, "It's called diversification. That's a good thing!". I replied that diversification is good for investors, but companies should figure out something they're good at and do it.
HCCA was good at printing press releases and certs.
I'll easily concede this one as you've obviously done research on it and I was shooting from the hip based on pretty old history, as Janice also pointed out to me.
So I won't bet against it trading. But I won't bet that it'll be pretty.
I was referring to the creation of boards where the moderator is given carte blanc to delete posts according to his whim rather than our rules. I know nothing of you or this board (which I did note you're the moderator of), but you don't come across like the kind of "moderator" I was speaking of in that post.
We insist on a certain level of civility here unlike RB. Granted, the word "basher" is a hot button for me because it's so often misused, but as long as someone's not enforcing their own "rule" of "Don't speak ill of the company", I'm cool with it. That's the problem that was occurring on that board and we were giving the appearance of condoning it, which is a problem I have to be directly involved with.
If the post to which I'm replying is representative of the way you conduct yourself on this board and carry out your moderation duties, don't worry that your board is going to be "targeted". Heck, you heaped more "bashing" than praise on the company in that one post, so I seriously doubt "balance" is an issue here.
And "balance" isn't what I'm worried about so much as "enforced imbalance" as was happening on the One Step Ahead board.
The fact that it was happening in the Free Zone as an exception to our "one ticker: one board" rule was also an issue.
What happened with that board was in large part my fault. I run the business end of things and Matt handles user administration. Part of my duties include setting policy and changing it as needed, though that's always been a joint effort in the past. However, I'd been so tied up with assimilating Silicon Investor for nearly 2 years, that I've been remiss in keeping an eye on the big picture of this site.
I'll be addressing that as soon as I can (I'm devoting much more of my time to iHub beyond making money for it lately) and I'll review and, if necessary, revise the Terms of Use in the near future.
Not that my perusal of tonight's posts on this board leads me to believe any of those changes will affect this one.
Not only is my name so easy to spell that a person with at least a GED should be able to figure it out, it was staring you right in the face while you completely butchered it.
This tendency to ignore what's right in front of you: A trait you take into other aspects of your life?
Geez, my posts lately are full of "Oops"'s!!!
Dyslexia getting worse with old age. You'll note that though I'll often type the wrong word, I do type it correctly.
I guess I'm starting to mix my scams like I mix my metaphors.
Oh well. Better safe than a bird in the bush.
I'm not sure what kind of site he wanted to open, but when people have previously stomped their feet demanding their way on my site, I've typically steered them toward vBulletin and UltimateBBS, both of which are very good off-the-shelf message board packages. Get a colo agreement with an ISP (typically in the $500 per month range per server), buy, configure, and install the server, install the software, and you've got yourself a message-board. And all the control you want over it. There are probably also sites that host "private boards" at low cost. I know one of the above-mentioned packages is made by a company that makes boards available that way.
Those are actually excellent packages for small sites that don't expect to become big sites. They can't handle even a fraction of a percent of the traffic of a home-grown ASP/SQL combination running on serious hardware, but for a site that'll never go past a few thousand page views per day, they're ideal.
Edit: To start up a site like this one, you're looking at about $50k for hardware, operating systems, and software (SQL Server, Oracle, whatever), then about $250k for a consultant to write the system and several months for him to get it done.
And 2-3 TRILLION NAKED SHORT SHARES
Can you cite a source for that information?
A lot of RMIL longs but an admirable amount of effort into trying to get an accurate count of how many shares they collectively owned (plugging their ears to the "bashers" repeatedly tell them "The company's lying to you") and had determined (with the help of some creative assumptions) determined that more shares where owned than the company said existed.
Perfect recipe for a short squeeze.
But it turned out the company had been lying about the number of shares out. And helping foster a belief that evil naked shorts were harming their share price when the fact of the matter was that the company itself was doing it.
Or the one whose business plan was to eventually invent a time machine, then come back to the present with knowledge of how to build a time machine.
Although one of the few that the SEC moved surprisingly quickly on (but not before lots of people lost a ton of money believing the unbelievable) was the car sales/finance folks who claimed to have developed or acquired the rights to an AIDS cure cream.
Right after I'd just posted about the effects on the site as a business when there are bunches of posts that're noise rather than signal. Priceless!
Now if you'll excuse us, we're having an exchange here and actually getting gray matter involved.
Thank you for understanding.
Although the MACH board has probably been great for the website because of hits,
Take any board in the top 50 list and consider what a small percentage of the total traffic it represents for the site. This board was not a "whale".
Zeev's board is a whale and they're really good folks there who have very high-quality trading talk. I'll always bend over backwards to accommodate them because they've earned it and of the few requests they've made, none have been unreasonable or come even close to compromising the principles of the site.
I think part of the problem was that some people, the moderator included, overestimated this board's worth to us as a business and expected to be able use that misconception as leverage.
it's been the major source of dissension among the community for many months.
Though "right vs. wrong" is higher on my list than "what's good for business", "right" is also "good business".
I was really put off pretty quickly by being told "IHUB has a chance to be a great site" and most especially "Do you think I don't understand about how you make a lot of your revenue?"
Such comments typically come from people who haven't set foot outside their grove and think they're the forest, not comprehending how huge the forest is.
That comes across to me as "Do what I demand or you're going down the tubes." I've heard it a thousand times. Often by people who will start a competing site to put us out of business, proving themselves right. The DGIV "Rocketeers" being a glaring example.
Anyway, few individual boards "make" the site. There are tens of thousands of boards here. And if one board is doing a lot of noisy traffic where people are unlikely to click ads because they're just jumping rapidly from post to post, we actually lose money both long-term and short-term.
And if they're denting the reputation of the site in the process, the long-term effects are worse.
I assumed he meant "dearth". IMO, OTCBB and PK companies have to have their "information" viewed with a very skeptical eye because it often isn't what one would consider "good information". Often it's just what they'd have you believe so they can sell more paper.
In the absence of reliable, good info, people who speculate in these risky stocks really need to do so with both eyes open and not put on the blinders when someone comes along with better info.
Wow! Tiny world. Both in messaging and in scam stocks!
I remembered vaguely that someone had PM'd me a r/s story that trumped HCCA, which up to that point was the most inconceivably huge one I'd ever seen.
Prior to my being the admin at SI, I was really duking it out with some touts on the HCCA thread, the most prolific of which I still believe was the CEO's son.
Edit: Now I'm trying to remember who it was that I'd gotten a friendly dialogue going with who was the IR for some scam company who I'd come to believe was just spouting what the company told him and who they left twisting in the wind, unpaid. Thought it was HCCA, but the name you mentioned isn't ringing a bell.
The guy I talked to seemed a decent sort who'd just gotten taken advantage of by bad people. Although I also seem to vaguely recall a later falling out, when I decided he wasn't quite so innocent and "taken" as I'd first thought.