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.
"GRUB"
JXM
(that is who I am quoting!!!)
Laughing...OK
Matt,
I thought you should have left those posts. They showed real clearly that those posters respected no-one's opinion, including yours. They claim to support your "mission" at IHUB.....but could not respect your wishs.
Got a link or an midi for that song....."True Colors"
Not that the words apply here...but the title sure does!!!
Anthony.....
Help me out here......PLEASE.....
you state.....
Let's move on. Facts are Facts. There is a praper trail on this, and let it lead where it may. I always say, "telling the truth, just keeps your story straight"...
Did I miss where you are keeping the story straight, and justifing your LIES in yesterday mornings post?? You know.....where you said.....
"JUST A STORY....
I would like to tell a story."
then you said.....
"(As told to a recent acquaintance)"
and you close with...
"Please do not misinterpret or extrapolate anything other than a story to discuss, if these practice are appropriate.
I am just curious to find out!"
A. MarketFusion
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=112770
Anthony, could you please point out how you get "truth" out of those statements...when your "story" was clearly about what happened on IHUB. Matt made it known that the "mystery shopper" was YOU. I ask who it was, point blank and Matt answered.....assumingly....Truthfully!
Matt,
You continue to skirt the FACT that Anthony LIED and MISLEAD everyone with his "story" yesterday morning. He stressed that it was only a story. Everyone else can see the lies Matt.
Buck up!!! face the fact.....you only make yourself look bad by continuing to treat people as if they are stupid. Conviently when you posted the message I am replying to...you left out addressing this issue of lying, but chose to focus on the being "conned" angle.......
Matt,
Companies that have "mystery shoppers" have a tough time keeping them secret. As a matter of fact in the one work situation I was in, the knowledge of a possible "mystery shopper" was used to keep employees on their toes. The idenity of the shopper and what time they might shop, were kept secret, but not their existence. Hence, they know it is coming.....they just don't know when or by whom.
Here's a lesson in mystery shoppers. (From an earlier post of mine, that can be found on SI)
In the franchise we own...there have been known to be "mystery shoppers." And I don't think they take the "shopping" approach that is "fictitiously" described in that "story." Mystery shoppers are not put out to rip the stores to shreds, challenge them yes. And in the end, it is not the mystery shoppers that would lose their jobs. When a company sends out a mystery shopper, they keep in mind that the "shopper" is on the cooperate side. The corporation respects them as a valued employee. They give a "mystery shopper" a rather important job, they don't trust that job to just anyone. A mystery shopper HAS to know ALL the workings of a company and what is acceptable and what is not. They don't change the rules on them midstream!!! When you consider that cooperation's make decisions that effect the entire organization, based on the finding of a mystery shopper, you can bet they make careful choices on who is a "mystery shopper" I bet previous product knowledge and knowledge of the competition are critical factors. (BTW ever time my hub has been shopped by a mystery shopper.....he get's rave reviews!!)
I don't this little scene works, nor do I buy his comment about it just being a little story to story to discuss, if these practice are appropriate.
I don't like the many ways this little scenario of a "mystery shopper" could be twisted. Just another way to deceive people about what is really happening.
Matt the set-up was deception. Just as I think you are either being decieved now...or trying to decieve others.
The main issue of that post by Anthony was not related to how many identies he had. If that had been his point, why didn't he link it to that question....instead of to NOTHING???
Currently, it is looking more and more like integrity is the issue here.
I'd even be willing to bet, that he is not going to be happy with you for using the "mystery shopper" term in your post. I think you really blew it with that. Cause in no way, did he make that connection in his revealing of his various alias's. I would guess if he wanted that so clearly pointed out, he would have done so himself in his lenghty post explaining the alias situation.
NO MATT,
Read my first post again, where I question why the similarity between your clarification and Anthony's "story" this morning I quoted him...he plainly said...
This is "just a story" (title of his post)
he ended it with saying that it was just to get a response to how people feel about "mystery shoppers"
He also posted that it was a "story" as told to him by an acquaintence.
Obviously you have confirmed by telling us that Anthony was the the "mystery shopper" that his post this morning was laced with lies. Matt, it is there in print......you call it what ever you want, I call it a lie... But keep in mind the people who signed up for your site are not stupid. They can read it all and make their decisions as to what they call it, provided, it is not all deleted.
Of course......JMVHO
Jane
Matt,
As I see it.....the bottom line is this.....
Anthony lied.....and you went along with it.
so much for values and integrity.
I am disappointed in you.....<good thing my neice didn't need a date to the prom>
Jane
Still waiting on your reply to my last question. But I have another question also...
Can you explain this...(and keep your integrity intact??)
Matt,
I find it interesting that you use the term "mystery shopper" in your clarification. Anthony posted this morning that...the "story" about the mystery shopper was completely for the purpose of discussing "mystery shoppers" He even titled his post, "Just a Story
He ended that post with this, Please do not misinterpret or extrapolate anything other than a story to discuss, if these practice are appropriate.
I am just curious to find out!
It is rather amazing how his "Just a Story" sounds strangely like the scenario you just described.
Why is that??
<btw, thinking about your educational backround>
So Matt,
Who is the "mystery shopper??"
just for the record.....the unretouched post.....
Posted by: Anthony M-Fusion
In reply to: Gulley J who wrote msg# 2940 Date: 5/23/2001 12:20:27 AM (ET)
Post # of 3310
Sorry for your rooted angery, BUT you are wrong.
A. MarketFusion
F-G,
Would you mind passing your spelling advice on to others on the thread that seem to also have difficulty with spelling??
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=111729
Anthony,
How nice of you to grace us with your presence. Unfortunately your mere presence is not enough to earn you the respect you want, answers would be more helpful in that area. Better yet, honest answers.
Oh and one more thing, I am axniously awaiting your conclusion to the "mystery shopper" story. I am waiting to see how you can pull off the follow up. Cause I must say, currently the story just does not work for me. So I am wondering if a well written conclusion to it, will help to pull it together. I am not optomistic though. I really didn't buy into your line about it not reflecting any reality.....(paraphrasing...not quoting you) You must think that those people who have signed on to Ihub are stupid. If you expect us to believe you were not hinting at some comparison. So when can we expect to see how the hypothetical story unfolds???
TIA,
Neenny
Say goodnight Matt.....
Cause it surely does not look like he will be keeping his word.
But as seems typical has left himself a nice little loop hole...(though some may see it more like a noose, than a loop hole!!)
<edit> my comments still stand, though I see Anthony has showed up, but yet to post the information requested of him.....
Bet he says he wasn't speaking of EST!!!
nextbestexcuse.com
A,
There is always a delay with you.
This should have been a fairly simple question for you to answer. Unless of course there a so many alias's you use that you will have to search them all out.
Why can't you just provide a prompt simple answer?? Why the head games all the time, didn't you grow out of them in high school?? or even college????
I think even Matt, sees the light regarding such games.
You need to treat the posters at this site with some respect, unless of course you really don't care about them.
Respectfully<??>
Neenny
(my mom always taught me respect was something someone earned)
Qua,
I did not realize how appropriate the entire song was/is!!!
Thanks for posting the full lyrics.
Neenny
IMO This is a matter between bob and matt and ihub, and people that aren't involved should stay out of it.
That had been my view all along with Bob's employment at IHUB. People should have stayed out and not grilled either Bob or Matt. They should have been able to work out their management plans with out so much static.
<singing> but it's too late baby now, it's too late.........
Poet,
I agree with the things you said here about Bob and his integrity.
It seems the situation at Ihub has put a lot of people on the jagged edge. (sorta like the presidential election eh?? <wink>)
It is a shame sometimes that as we write or speak we are reacting instead of thinking and acting,then we end up hurting those we care about. It happenes in our real lives and even effects those we know in 2D. One can only hope that apologies spoken are from the heart, and a lesson is learned from it.
I hope you have a good day,
your friend,
Jane
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.
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.
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********
SPAM ALERT
Was not sure where to post this spammer......
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/profile.asp?User=6608
Does Sandy get the record.....55+ duplicate posts in less than 2 hours???
Morning Poet,
Just checked out that board. The post are viable if you use the "previous" button.
Being that I am not a PC wizard, I don't know the how's and why's of that, but Lisa's explanation sure sounded good to me...
smiles
Jane
Gary,
Are you saying that you disagree 100% with everything I said in my post, or just the part you quoted??
Goes against every legal and common sense concept in our society.
Do we live in the same country??? Same planet??
I am from Venus. Where you from???
As for the attorney thought. I am thinking that before I even call an attorney, I would have to have been charged with something. I don't think I would have the need to seek the advice of an attorney on matters that have yet to occur or been charged with.
This does bring to mind and interesting comparison goes something like this...
<future suspect> Hello, Attorney Jones, I was thinking if the following senerio happened, how would you handle my case?? I know it seems pretty far fetched, but I would like to know in advance exactly how your going to handle it.
<attorney> Well Mrs Neenish, in that senerio if you do this, I would act as following. On the other hand, I might just have to approach it from this angle depending on how many other variables are added into the case. But thanks for the allowing me to guess on how I would handle this matter long before it becomes a REAL issue. And by the way...Mrs Neenish, please wait to call me in the future after charges have been filed against you, cause contray to what you think based on the number of these "what if" cases you have presented before me........I really do have OTHER WORK TO ATTEND TO!!!
Of course if you apply that scene to Ihub, the posters are the future suspect and Bob would be the attorney.
I do realize that in your post and in mine previously we were using Bob as the "suspect" When I said that I thought the old guard should wait til the suspect does something before pulling out the weapons." My intended use of the word "suspect" relating to Bob was that some posters are suspicious of every comment he makes. Every attempt he makes at looking at both side of make believe "what if" senerio's he becomes more suspect, by the very people that set him up to begin with. For that reason I suggested that people let him do his job. If people would go about the business of making money in the stock market and discussing stocks, things would be much simpler. Not every member of IHub needs to know ever adminstrative action that occurs. Simply it is none of their business unless it directly involves them. A wise friend once told me, "If you are not part of the solution, don't become part of the problem" If I looked at your "what if" concerns from that perspective, I would surely think that from your intention to be part of solutions, you'll also be a part of the problems.
Right now this thread is on questions and answers and as the answers come it raises more questions especially to the old guard.
I think that you should go back and re-read the Ibox for this thread. Here, let me post a bit of it for you.
Chairman: IH Admin (Bob)
Director(s): None
Created: 4/11/2001 5:05:37 PM (ET)
This board will be a place for you to ask any questions about InvestorsHub and for me to answer those questions or pontificate on whatever subject happens to be on my mind. Heck, for that matter, you can pontificate here, too. Got a beef? Let's hear it.
Ground rule for this thread: If you've got an issue with another person on the site or off the site, leave it at the door. No negative commentary about other people will be permitted in this thread.
The ibox states that this tread is to discuss questions and answers... It goes on to say that if you have a problem with or issue with another person from this site or another, leave it at the door. I think this is where your issue of "old guard" needs to be left at the door. Lots of "what if's" being posted on this tread are about OLD issue from other times and places. So if the Ibox says this board is for questions and answers.....make note, it says to leave old issues at the door and the negative commmentary about other people.
SO what you are telling me is the old guard should just wait till it is to late to have a voice int he matter?
Personally I think your missing it here as well. For several reasons. The "old guard" really does not have a say so.....this is not a democracy. It is cool of adminstration to want to listen to the members of the site, but the final say belongs to them. I am of the opinion that, if a person keeps coming back with pretend issues for management to deal with, management is going to have at some point say. They cannot manage pretend issues and come up with real policy for the site at the same time. Expecting repeated role playing by managment from posts will only serve to dull the voice of the posters. You said previously that you choose your battles deliberately.....again I suggest you choose to wait til there really are battles to be fought instead of these continued practice sessions. Don't fatique yourself or them on pretend battles. I think this might be one case where the squeaky wheel will not get the attention in the long run. It will be more like the boy that cried "wolf"
ALL of course......JMHO
One minute I think he is on track and the next I flat have no idea where he is coming from. The Old Guard is going to have to stay on their toes. This changes minute by minute.
I think the old guard needs to back off and wait til the suspect does something before pulling their weapons out.
I really think people need to stop backing him into a corner by suggesting "what if" senerio's. People ask questions, seems he tries to answer them covering all the bases, so that his answers do not come back to bite him. And sure enough just being through and looking at both sides of the "what if" questions, it comes back and haunts him, before it is ever a real issue.
I think Bob needs to be allowed to sink or swim on his on merit, not gunned down by "what if's"
Of course that is
JMHO
Neenny
That seems like a pretty cool idea!!
Much easier to keep track of them that way.
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
Lisa,
It is a shame that questions that pertain to real issues for IHUB, become clouded by posts that are more concerned about "he said/ she said" type senerio's. Those are the types of posts that have bored me. This thread was intended for real questions about how this site is being run and policys. I commented way back when on this board that IHUB needed to have a solid/consistent stance on what would be considered advertising both in regards to the boards it has and the links that are posted. Even for myself, I just posted a link regarding the stock DSCO. The link I posted was from SI News. I posted it, cause I wanted to verify my information. But I felt ackward posting a link to a competitors stock site. When I had commented previously about needing a consistance stance/policy on advertising, I also said one of the difficult things for IHUB would be to go back and locate the offenses of the policy that are already active, not so much the "policing" of new violations. Did you see the recent questions and answers about these issues?? Did they address what you are asking??
Here's the link to the quesitons.....
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=101227
Here's the link to Bob's reply....
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=101300
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
Bob,
I totally agree that it is high time the testing stopped.
Personally, and I have not read every message, I am so tired of hypothetical situations being questioned as to what happens if this person does this or that person does that. I think it is time for the chips to fall where they may and let the issues be resolved as they arise. It seems to me that the pseudo-situations, have cause more "real" issues to come about, than would have occurred if people just gave things a chance to unfold, without second guessing what might happen.
Still wishing you well.
Neenny
That is sad. I will allow you to grub the 42 on this thread out of respect for your loss......
Let me assure you, I am the other real "me"
what kind of proof do you need?? Vegas pictures mabye?? LOL
Belly dancers maybe??? <ggg>
First let "me" go on record as being totally convinced, that I am "me". With that established, "me" wanted to comment on your ability to access the link provided in Will's post. I have tried to access it twice now. Neither time has been successful. The only thing that was successfully accomplished was I have two open IHub windows that are totally frozen. I cannot access them at all, nor can I close them. And it is still morning.....<geez>
Seemed there was a lot more dinging going on over at SI by lots of people for lots of things...
I am still working on my reply to the car salesman/car purchasing analogy. (it does not work for me)
Seems to be just a matter of who's head is on the chopping block at the present moment!
This is 1.
<edit 1>(btw...if I post my link to my stock related comment after my 10 minute edit window.....does that count as another reply and do I then need to make another stock related post.....(could be come a vicious circle!!!))
<edit 2>Note to Poet. Thanks for backing me up here the other day. I appreciated it. But I must say when I read the reply Joemoney posted to me.....asking if I was "Bob's attorney" I honestly burst out laughing. Seems to me, that my post must have made some sense regarding the fact that it didn't matter who or how many elections were held to determine who should or should not be IHub administration, because the only retort they had for me, was to ask if I was Bob's attorney!! Felt like victory to me!!!
<edit 3>Note to Bob......don't forget to put the check in the mail for my services...<wink>
Did I hear the word Party????
Svejk,
I was not saying that I thought it should be allowed to contiue as such. I was merely pointing out, that I thought that the deletion was being done by a program, and not by a human person. Therefore, feeling that until the bug is resolved by IHub, there might be a tad less apprehension about the PM's in general.
Using your example of FedEx, messing with your private stuff. I can give an example where I agree that fedex would be out of line...and I can give an example of where Fedex and the USPostal service do it all the time.
If Fedex opens my package and reveals it contents to other......that would be a NO-NO.
On the other hand....if FedEx or the US Postal Service alter my package by computer generating another address label or bar coding my package, have they invaded my privacy??? I think not, they do it all the time. They have changed what I was sending, but they have not violated the contents. I see a computer generated bar code, address label or +4 zip code being added as similar to a computer deleting words programmed into the system as unacceptable.
Would it be different in your opinion if IHUB stated somewhere in the TOU that the system is programmed to XXXX-out profanity on the site, no matter where it is found.....publicly or privately. I would think that being a private site, it is within the "rights" of the site administrators to program their site to do such actions.
Of course there is one simple solution.....for those in the know, about this happening.....if you don't use profanity, your message will be uncompromised. That is assuming that one views their PM's as compromised if the program xxxx's out profanity.
just a few thoughts.....(it is good to toss around a variety of ideas...provided we do it with out reducing ourselves to using profanity or name calling!!! <smiles>)
Neenny
Svejk,
I tend to agree with you. But I am assuming that the deletion of profanity in PM's is done by a program that just picks out letter combinations from communication using the Ihub.com address. People need to realize that and not foolishly think that someone is proofreading every PM or every post for profanity.
My point being, that even though the system is picking up the words in PM's...it is not like the privacy of the PM has been violated.
Just putting it into perspective for anyone who might not have thought through how their PM's get edited.
Neenny