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.
Deleted, meant to be private message.
All: Something pretty important about the site's rules came to my attention for the first time last night. Don't ask me how that could possibly happen, given I'd been an Admin for eons, have stated repeatedly on this thread that this is my place with my rules, and I have complete control. Even when some pointed out that mayhaps it would be a good idea to look deeper than just the surface, obviously I did not, and Matt has now made me look like a complete [starts with an I, then D, then another I, then an O, ends with T]. Bummer.
Apparently, it's been understood that if you ran a thread -- any thread -- you could do as you pleased. Fabulous if you are into pump and dump OTCBB garbage. Now I'm told we'll modify that so only if your thread is not stock-specific, you can have any rules you want. In the words of Sane People, "What is this sudden change from 'my house my rules' to 'sorry, didn't know?'" Duh, No wonder it's been at the core of some recent disagreements.
I'd been discussing a variation of this with Matt, as something I'll be forced by him and his buds to implement, but I (and I'm sure most people, who are as new to the site as I am) didn't know I'd hardly be able to change what was already in place because of the kind of unwritten understanding to styfle opposing viewpoints that exists here, so grews could grow their crop undisturbed. My thinking was that it's something that needed change, but now I see I'll have to leave things mostly as they are currently being done.
So Matt and I are working on getting the Terms of Use revised to reflect my capitulation on this and to spell out the details of it, and are also working on the Board-Manager How-To at the same time.
The short version is this: If your thread is specific to a particular stock, you cannot delete a post unless it is in clear violation of the Terms of Use. Period.
If you want to run a "personal" thread (SILENCE! is an example) that isn't about a company, then you can delete any post for any reason (as they conveniently remembered yesterday, it's "apparently" always been, because the folks that run it require their hypocritical actions remain hidden).
I do get thrown a bone, though, and it'll be reflected in the new Terms of Use/How-To documents: If you will be using rules not included in the Terms of Use, spell them out in the iHype box.
This can be as detailed or as broad as you want. Hurry. Do it now, to insure your future questionable practices have at least a bit of "justification."
For example, if you want every post in your personal (non-stock) thread to include the phrase "Thank God Bob rolled over, I'd be toast otherwise", and will delete all that don't, you need to add a section to your iHype box that says "My Rules cause I said so" and includes "You must always agree with me, "Thank God Bob rolled over, I'd be toast otherwise". If you have something to hide, this should make it easy to hide it.
And if you want to be able to delete any post for any reason you might think of, just be sure to include something like "I will delete any post I want just because I feel like it." The important thing is to let anyone insane enough to participate know your dictatorial post-deletion needs. If there is anyone willing to participate in your censored thread they can take that into account before making the mistake of posting on your thread.
We'll also be modifying the deletion-reasons dropdown to make "My Rules cause I said so" an available choice when dealing with a personal thread.
So, my roll over play dead situation explained again: for personal threads, I give up, any rules you want so long as you specify the rules. The site's rules (Terms of Use) still apply (I hope, but ask Matt, he may change his mind on that) to such threads as well (this part is subject to change at Matt's discretion). You still must delete profanity, invasions of privacy, etc. If it's a stock thread, only the site's rules apply.
That leaves a rather large gray area, (for example, a thread about OTCBB garbage plays in general, rather than a specific garbage company, so you'll be able to pump and dump on that kind of a thread no problemo, I promise!) that we're still pretending to be figuring out (Matt's got a pretty good idea how he wants to address them) and that area will be covered in the revised written rules (subject to change by Matt, of course, at any time).
Matt's peon.
< fluff, not substance, by David, accomplishing nothing, as usual, and expected >
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=100636
< /fluff, not substance, by David, accomplishing nothing, as usual, and expected >
Humbly thanking God, David, you're really, really close this time!
Ok so you are calling GB a hypocrite again.
So close! Change it to: "Ok so you are calling GB's actions hypocritycal again," and it'll be perfect!
Took a while, but I guess it was worth it.
[Note to self: self, try Czech the first the next time, seems to work best.]
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly report, David, I see you indeed do not comprehend English. I'll try Czech:
Hele, nejde o to co zmizelo, jde o to, ze GB jednal hypokraticky. Jasny? Prima!
That's my last try at making what I've made absolutely crystal clear, possibly even more so.
Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly disagree, David, sigh, again.
Clearly you have a "How dare he Delete ME!?!" argument to present here.
No. I have a "how dare he say one thing and do another" problem with his actions. GB's actions. They cast light on his entire conduct, in the past and in the future. My one little post is quite irrelevant, really, so is the fact that it is still gone, and will likely remain so. However, GB will remain in the light he cast himself in -- hypocritical.
Clearly in your *opinion* you violated no rule.
Clearly I have not. GB changed the rules of posting on his thread AFTER my post.
Unfortunately no one is in agreement with you. At least no one that matters.
False statement, clearly, for at least one poster agrees with me -- marcos -- whose posts were also deleted, contrary to the rules established by GB, subsequently conveniently changed.
As to what matters, well, you'll be the last one I'll ask regarding that!
As a Director on VOICE I have seen the posts in question. I agree with GB assessment. While I might have allowed you enough rope to thoroughly tie yourself in knots, it is Gary's board and he gets to run it his way.
Irrelevant. Again, you displace the conflict. My issue is with GB saying one thing doing another. My issue is NOT with the thread rules, as they pertain to this discussion. I have said this enough times for even a child to understand. Why don't you?
Bob has seen your posts and they remain deleted.
So? What does that have to do with anything? Again, my issue is with GB saying one thing, then doing another. Not with HuBob, nor the fate of the deleted post. I have said this enough times for even a child to understand. Why don't you?
Matt has seen your posts and they remain deleted.
So? What does that have to do with anything? Again, my issue is with GB saying one thing, then doing another. Not with Matt, nor the fate of the deleted post. I have said this enough times for even a child to understand. Why don't you?
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly slick again, GB, very slick.
I have added to my personal threads "However, I will deleted whatever I feel deserves to be deleted."
That'll solve it. Mr. Super Fair Fighting For The People To Have A Voice Against The Tyrany of Bullies avoids the original conflict that exposed his actions for what they were -- hypocritical -- and THEN sets NEW rules that insure his hypocritical actions can continue.
Figures.
Like finding a smoker puffing in a smoking area, and telling them, "No smoking allowed here." Smoker goes, "Huh? This IS the smoking room, says so on the wall!" The other dood pulls down the original sign, puts up a new one that says No Smoking, and says, "See?"
Case closed. You, Sir, are not worth my time.
Good bye.
Svejk
Humble thanks, David, I read it.
Apparently you still have problems comprehending. My issue is with GB, and GB alone. HIS stated desire for open discussion, and HIS thwarting it. NOT the rules of the site.
IF GB wants a fair and open discussion, WHY did he thwart it -- as it pertains to marcos in particular!?
I am aware he has the RIGHT to do so, on HIS thread, under HIS rules there, but still -- his actions contradict his statements.
That is the issue -- get it?
Cheers,
Svejk
Humble thanks, David, yes, have read the book.
Any particular reason you allign yourself on the side of hypocracy?
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly disagree, GB,
Jo you did not make an opinion just a sly tap at me.
I quoted Shakespeare to you. Specifically, I posted "Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest" -- Shakespeare.
It was the response to this post of yours:
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=98451
The implied meaning was, since I have to be blunt, "look in the mirror, what you said applies to you."
In other words, a perfectly valid point of view. You deleted it, though you keep claiming you welcome valid contrary opinion, and cast yourself as a fighter for truth. Major contradiction. THAT is, and has been all along, the point of this conversation.
AH the contradiction you supprt IHUB but you do not support chair's rights to control their threads
Again, you put erroneous words in my mouth. I have never done the above. I have ONLY maintained that the Admin must have the ultimate say, and that arbitrary deletion of posts is wrong -- on anyone's part.
But you do not like it when your post is remove because did not offer anything more that a childish clever stab that you feel should be heard as an opinion.
I do not like it when my posts are removed even though they do not violate the ToU, as I have done on your thread. And once again I take issue with your qualification of my posts. that in itself is fine, state your view, but do not delete mine, for arbitrary reasons.
LOL .. I do not think so. Now you want to blast me then bring the underlying basis.
No, I'm repeatedly "blasting" you for your hypocritical actions.
But you refuse to do so and on topic.
Quite the contrary. I have even been reprimanded a few posts back by David for staying on topic. Read the thread.
I realize that you can;t because as you have stated you are defending Bob and taking me on because I dared to question him.
Absolutely incorrect again. I have repeatedly stated here my issue is with YOUR deleting of posts. Nothing to do with HuBob. Your actions, not HuBob's have been the primary focus of my posts here. read the thread.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly slick, GB. Very slick.
Avoid, obsuscate, displace conflict, burry, hide.
Your disgusting actions color you, remember that.
Cheers,
Svejk
Accepted.
Humble thanks for the compliments, GB!
I find you to be the type that are comical in your efforts to protect Bob.
That is my intention. Thanks. Comical, reasoned, open minded, tollerant, those are my goals.
I have posted numerous time why I deleted your posts and especially marcos.
You may have. My issue is with your on the one hand claiming to be a fair and open debater, on the other deleting posts. Your reasons for deleting them do not match your declared open mindedness -- THAT is the issue, not JUST your explanation of your deletions.
Also if you want to be heard without question take to an unmoderated site. This is a moderated site. Your whole concept does not work here only on a site design for anarchy.
Putting words in my mouth. You haven't a clue what "my whole concept" is. I have no desire for Anarchy here. My supposrt for HuBob should have made that abundantly clear.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly report, David, please let me remind you again that this is a public forum, and this thread in specific is for saying what one may not want to say elsewhere.
Now, thank you ever so much for pointing out whatever it is GB has decided to do since I last conversed with him, however, the post to which I replied is less than 24 hours old, it is his last to me, so I am answering it upon my return to IH, on my term, at a time I chose, as is my right, privilige and choice. I other words, none of your business.
You are now dredging up history and trying to present it as a new argument.
No. Old argument, answered in a timely fashion, as my time needs and other considerations dictate.
Your performance yesterday, while entertaining shows you are more than a little bit over your head in this arena.
I'll refrain from commenting on the above statement, as it pertains to the light it cast you in. Others have already told you what they think regarding your continued declarations of victory, and such other statements of yours which I consider irrelevant. I am pleased you find me entertaining, however, that is one of my goals. I may be over my head, would not be the first time, however, coming from you, and considering the source, don't think I have much to worry about.
Bob has down a commandable job of defending his position. He certainly needs no assistance from you.
Any particular reason you are quoting me in the above statement?
Scoot!
And in this one? Surely you can be original, at least once?
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly agree, GB, with the following:
Not only that but [HuBob] trying to flex muscle to change or do some kind of clean up is NOT what I understand is his scope of work. It is to moderate the chairmen.
He has been doing precisely that, as far as I can tell, and has said so repeatedly. Click on his profile, read his posts, you will see that is his intention, goal, stated purpose and action.
The problem is not Bob but the change to the concept.
Please explain. I have not seen the concept change.
Also with all this banter for Bob and the site being totally disrupted
IH is functioning very well, as far as I can tell. Have not experienced any disruptions in service at all. Pages load quickly, very few error messages, in short, no problem I can see.
I learned a long time ago to fight and play this game ALONE.
Boy oh boy, is THAT ever a set-up for a one liner! I'll pass. (g) In any case, I agree. Your deleting of posts has proven the fact that you "fight" unfairly, and prefer to have only your voice heard, ALONE.
Cronies typically are your worse enemy in a fight.
No, people that stack the deck in their favor are typically my worst "enemies." Impossible to engage them fairly. Found that mirror yet?
1. If Bob is or has been focused on P&D then that is one of his mistakes mainly because that is the job of the SEC.
Agree -- IF. He has not, as far as I can tell.
2. If Bob is concerned about making changes to an already established concept unchallenged that is another mistake because the right is to challenge.
Absolutely agree! Everyone's voice should be heard. Why did you delete my post? I had the right to challenge your statements! Very hypocritical action on your part!
3. If Bob is behind all this nonsense then he has another problem because he is not doing his job.
What nonsense? I have read nonsense here, but not in HuBob's posts. Found the mirror yet?
You people have no idea what you are doing and I can tell you from experience that Bob needs to polish bats and chase baseballs or bat.
You talking to me? Am I one of the "you people?" If so, I have a pretty good idea as to what I am humbly doing. And I do not believe you to be qualified to tell HuBob what he should do with his life. You can suggest, as can I. His call in the end.
This is a stock site for the most part
Agree.
and not a Bob debate site
Agree.
and should Bob be allowed to establish Bob's World
No, he should not, and has not. He has tried to create a level playing field and has said precisely that.
so the SI factor can invade and disrupt
Do not believe HuBob would allow that, at all! He has not, up to now.
under the knowledge that you have the right to just bad mouth all you want and get away with it.
HuBob has NEVER tolerated any of the above, to the best of my knowledge. Don't see why he would start now.
That is not going to happen
Agree.
and if it does then Bob;s World will be totaly established
IF. IF that were the case, I'd be the first to speak up!
and IHUB's concept will be totally undermined
Agree, would be.
and SI has been reinvented.
Disagree. IH would become worthless, but would not reflect the SI model, at all.
Think about it. The problem is not Bob it is the SI Factor wanting what they had on SI
No. Speaking for myself, if I wanted to post on SI, I would. I would not be here. I am here because I trust HuBob will succeed in making IH a level playing field. If he does not, I will leave. "SI factor" has nothing to do with it (whatever it is), as far as I am concerned.
under his selective bias admin practices.
That is your view, not mine. Although I have been suspended by HuBob on numerous occasions, I find his admin practices to be beyond reproach by me.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly translated, BG, as I see it:
"Wah wah, I could do whatever I wanted here, until HuBob came, now I can't, 'cause he's creating a level playing field."
What can I tell ya, been watchin' every move HuBob's made since he got here. My hat is off to the man! Hard job, done well.
On that note, I'll bid all a good evening:
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/board.asp?board_id=618
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly agree, David, but, who said anything about IH management decisions in this matter?
GB zapped posts. We invited him here to talk about it. That's what we're doing. HuBob is only a part of the original dispute because of GB's dragging of HuBob through the mud, on his thread, where our posts got zapped.
What's that got to do with you, I might ask, but won't. I like your input, and that's what The Parking Lot is for.
Cheers,
Svejk
I gave you my humble opinion, BG.
You have often claimed precisely what you just have to me. Like I said, I read the book. The list of "unhappy" stocks that were once your favorites, as individual investor, IR, or whatever, is "out there" for all to see.
I don't need to prove anything. I am in fact quite apathetic as far as you're concerned. It just peeved me off the way you, of all people, went on your writing spree, to make HuBob look bad.
So, dood, I know, you know, we all know what's what. Just don't be deleting my posts that have every right to exist, that was my original point!
Your actions, day by day, minute by minute -- not your past -- is all we need to see here to know who you are.
Keep trying to earn respect.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly beg to differ, BG.
you are thread disruptors that came there for the sole purpose to engage me.
You posted your "HuBob According to GB" diatribe, which is, in an of itself unbelievably ludicrous, in my humble opinion, so I figured yeah, I'd "engage" you, why not?!?!?!
Since you two wish to exercise insinuation and innuendo I deleted you till you prove the underlying basis for you posts
No. Not true. You deleted a Shakespeare quote of mine:
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=98797
Nothing more nothing less. What you just did is what is called telling a lie. A story. That's what pump and dump doods do.
which I have every right to do as a Chairman.
No, you don't. Not in my view. That's why we came here to talk about it like adults, until some kids barged in.
Cheers.
Svejk
Humbly report, GB, it is entirely possible that each and every time you were associated with a stock of "unhappy" cirsumstances, it was just an accident you liked it, and spoke glowingly of it.
Yeah, I know, I know, you uncovered scams and told everyone about them. I know. Read the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060196203/qid%3D989525192/102-4452846-5275369
But you see, all your stuff is still out there, for everyone to see. I can get to know you, as it were, without ever having talked to you. Such is the case with me and you. I have read your stuff. My opinion is, that coincidence was not necessarily the reason you liked some "unhappy" stocks. Mr. OTCBB stock promoter.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly not at all, GB.
you can;t compete fruitfully ot compentently. Thus you are very weak at this game, which I was invited here to play. I need good players.
You were invited here by marcos because you deleted his and my posts from your thread, and have been challenged by marcos and me to explain -- coherently, but any explanation will do -- why you did that.
The action stirkes both him and me as dictatorial, unwarranted, unnecessary, no ToU were broken, so your action was absolutely counter the kind of civil, equal discussion that should exist here.
I began to treat you like a child when you began behaving like one, not before. Up until then I quoted Shakespeare to you, as adults often do. Go back, read, you will see I am correct.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly disagree, GB.
Without a lie you have no pump and dump.
A story, any story, is good enough. No lies required, just "exaggeration," and rahr rha rah:
http://www.pennyplayer.com/pump.html
And, of course, being able to silence the critics, right?
Found the mirror yet?
Cheers,
Svejk
Name calling
?!?
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=99295
Shoo.
Humble OK, David,
Clearly this topic has exhausted you capacity.
As clearly as I can see through a nice pint of Guinness.
When all else (logic) fails, go for the person, not the issue at hand, ay?
And here I thought you were trying to show me how much you -- as a CoB -- and a ref to boot, deserve respect, and should have the right to this and that. Yeah. Figures.
True colors, my friend, they always come out.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly report, David, no hmmmm there to me.
Ownership in what sense? financial?
Yes.
Have not several CoB's here invested significant portions of time and effort in promoting the IHUB experience?
Sure have. So have you and I. Doesn't make any of us owners, in the financial sense. We're not the house, we're its occupants. Renters if you will. Up to us if we want to make the place lovely, or trash it instead. But the Landlord rules, and decides what's lovely and what's trash. then pins the rules on the wall, and you break them, you're toast.
You would deny them the same privilege of protecting that investment for scurrilous detractors posting off topic comments that are nothing more than a challenge to the CoB's integrity?
Not my call. HuBob's.
Over on what is now known as Usenet...
This is not the Usenet. This is IH. HuBob rules IH, posts the rules, we play by these rules, not Usenet rules.
My advice to anyone...
Thanks, but no thanks.
This lack of respect for moderators is very disturbing. They have made a commitment above and beyond that of mere membership. Without them there would likely be no IHUB for you to post on.
Respect is earned. Moderators that zap posts only because the posts point out the weakness of their argument don't get mine.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humble aargh ...GB... got me!
Your thoughtful and well reasoned reply just killed me.
Now run along, please, adults talking.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly disagree, David, for a number of reasons.
Points of view yes, personal attack, character assassination, et al no.
Agree. Here is where we also agree, I am sure: ripping the message to shreds is OK, ripping apart the way the message is posted is OK. Telling someone to look in the mirror is OK, telling them that what they see in there is [insert ToU violation] is not OK.
One of your assertions from the previous I find most curious. You 100% disagree that a moderator should have carte blanche control over his board. Would you deny Bob the authority necessary to maintain order?
Absolutely not!
As admin for IHUB he is essentially a moderator.
And part owner. House makes the rules. We get to play with their dice.
The only difference between his position and that of a CoB is scale.
No, the main difference is ownership. CoB's are members. HuBob's the house. CoB's play by house rules that HuBob makes.
He surpervises a much larger area.
Yeah, the whole thang.
By your 100% disagreement you indicate that Bob should not be allowed to delete posts (or users) as he deems necessary.
Quite the contrary. Always.
Be cautious in your reply for all are equal.
OK. [glancing over shoulder]
No man stands above the rest.
On IH HuBob does.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly agree, David, and that is the entire point of what I have been saying: we are ALL entitled to our points of view, and deleting any of them -- for reasons strictly other than ToU violations -- is wrong, and is contrary to the needs of a viable investment discussion site.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humble doh, Da !, thanks for handing me that mirror! (g)
Cheers,
Svejk
So, humble question, valiant fighter, would be Shakespeare, windmills all you ever fight, or what?
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=98775
You really should pull out that mirror dood, the guy lookin' back is full of carp!
Cheers,
Svejk
Humble request, David, let's talk about it here, shall we?
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=98856
Poet, Josef, et al...
IMHO the moderator (CoB) of a board should be allowed carte blanche with what he/she feels is acceptable to post on his/her board.
100% disagree:
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=90181
If and only if a CoB is abusing that power should Bob take that moderator to task.
Agree. Being taken to task for deliberately "stacking the deck" in his/her favor should be viewed as abuse.
Further, that should stay between Bob and the CoB.
Yes, the "taking to task" should be private. None of anyone else's business.
By posting your deleted messages here you are attempting to circumvent the process in place by "trying your case in the court of public opinion".
Yes, I am trying my case in public. Chose the wrong thread. Should have done it just here. My bad. Sorry. Will try to do better next time. But it is worthy of discussion -- the powers, and the use/abuse of them as they relate to the CoB concept, is an important topic.
As such you are undermining Bob's authority and credibility.
HuBob's authority and credibility are his own. I didn't give 'em to him, nor can I or anyone else take them away.
Technically this is a violation of the topic of this board.
Agree. Apologize again.
However that is up to Bob to decide, Not I.
Yup.
What you are doing can only inflame the situation,
No. Inflame the situation is one thing that my actions can do. Another thing my actions can do is to gring us to a discussion such as you and I are now having, where posts don't get zapped for frivolous reasons, and we get to try and understand each other's point of view.
I for one do not want to see IHUB damaged in such a fashion.
Ditto. My wishes and actions here are with the site's best interests in mind.
Bob has been accused of allowing this very thing to happen elsewhere by not dealing with it harshly and swiftly.
"It" what? Posts like mine there? Hey, if he zaps it, I'd understand -- put it on the wrong thread, he asked us not to do so, I went against his wishes, so no, I would not be surprised if he dealt with it harshly and swiftly. Wouldn't even peep about it.
By making such statements as you have this morning you have placed Bob in a precarious position.
Sigh. Again, HuBob's got his position, and trust me, it ain't precarious. Not a whole heck of a lot you, me, or anyone else can do to shake it.
If he allows you to post this unhindered, his detractors have more fuel to add to their fire.
Tell you what. If it bugs you so much, ask him to water on it. That'll put out the fire.
If he does delete your posts he risks creating more detractor.
He risks creating more detractors with his every move. Not a big deal. He's pretty good at dealing with them, don't you think?
You obviously feel your posts are above deletion.
Obviously? Hardly. You obviously jumped to an erroneous conclusion. Yes, I have a hard head. But, I always reserve the right to change my mind, especially when presented with information that negates my prior understanding.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly agree, KG4, let's end it there.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly report, KG4, the reason I'm busting your chops is -- you tend to shoot off your mouth first, then check the facts (maybe) and find out what the real story is (maybe).
Did that with jenna, doing that again now, with Gary, done that countless times all over the place, here and on SI. (Don't make me go dig it up, don't have time for that chit, and you'll look very bad if I do.)
You wade in, go blablabla, then spend three days cleaning up the mess. I know, I know, deep down you are in fact a decent guy. No doubt in my mind about that.
So. Humble advice. Zip it 'til you know the facts.
Clear? Good!
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly repeat, KG4, that's all very well and good, but in my humble book, a dood that fights dirty in one fight -- a simple discourse about simple things -- will fight dirty in other fights -- stock talk.
But hey, who am I to tell you whose company to keep. He's your pal, that's cool by me. Makes it easy for me to know who's who and what's what.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humbly report, KG4, regarding your, "Gary id a good guy."
Not the Id I'm concerned about, it's his Ego that's a problem.
Regarding, "he wont run away scared like some of the other cowards on this thread..."
Yeah, sure. I'll buy that, and any bridges you may have on sale at the moment.
And I suppose deleting posts on his thread that are simple statements with nothing against any rules, is what you mean by facing and fighting?
Oh, OK, guess we agree then -- he fights dirty.
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=98803
By the way, did you provide jenna with all that info to help her in her "plight" against the hordes?
Nice to see, again, the kind of company you like to keep.
Cheers,
Svejk
And now, humbly something completely different, marcos.
http://www.examiner.com/business/default.jsp?story=b.investor.0405w
Met her, a while back, at the beginning of the y2k stock moonshot days. Asked her what she thought about buying some y2k stuff.
"Don't invest in negativity," was the advice. LOL!
Well, if I'd listened to that bit, I wouldn't have those lovely 80 acres with a cozy pad deep in the gorgeous woods. Sauna in the middle and all.
Grews. Line 'em up, cut 'em down.
Cheers,
Svejk
Humble hear hear on that, marcos!
The Shaketoothpick dood is all air about fair, and what not, then presto chango, behind everyone's back, zap zap, censor city!
Yeah, my "nasty" post went to IH heaven as well:
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=98638
Said: "Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest" -- Shakespeare.
He can write a hundred more tortuous novels on the subject, torturing the language to breaking point in the process, but actions speak louder than words, every single time!
Cheers,
Svejk