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.
Wow!
The first link has been common knowledge for a long time.
The other two are new on me. The third one is especially enlightening.
But I am playing spades ...
Yep. Really big of you.
Yeah, it's a waste of time. Don't know why I bother. Anyone who will ever get it already has.
Did Matt install a CD player in Bob;s home and forced him to listen to hard rock music or did Matt amke Bob play hard
rock music on his computer cd dirve during his time to admin this site.
Wow!
It was pretty obvious to me that Island was giving a what-if scenario. I didn't think he was saying "Okay, sexual or racial discrimination, or being forced to listen to loud music."
I guess the problem is, that I actually have been thinking while reading, and especially while writing posts.
Wow!
BTW, it was really big of you to insert those asides in there about how nice you were to a black man and a gay woman. Oh, and the "awards" thing is priceless. As is the self-denigration stuff.
And, Francois? In your considered opinion, surely based on experience, just how many years do people in my line of work last before they burn out?
And I'd say your prediction about people who came over from SI is pretty much a no-brainer. Your verbose buddy could've made that one. I don't agree with the reasons you cite, but I do agree with the prediction.
You got your way, so you should be happy with that and leave it at that. It's pretty unseemly to "dance on the grave", as it doesn't speak well of you. You'll have your little corner back soon enough.
I believe the burden is to show proof that the deingrating is not connected to someone's self-deingrating.
Didn't actually realize you were just making it up as you go along.
Really can't wait to get this whole mess and the related paperwork behind me so I can leave you to yourself, popping my ugly head in here only to refute your continued attacks on my character.
Now I do not see this being the case of I did not get my way so I quit scenario.
Still the comprehension problems...
Though the whole argument is largely academic (or is it?), I did not quit "because I didn't get my way", as has been evident in posts by both myself and Anthony.
You seem to be assuming why I quit despite the fact that you obviously don't really know.
I wasn't given anything I would call a "termination slip". I don't think I ever have been. So have no clue what this "checkbox" thing is you keep talking about, but citing as "proof" that I was "fired".
Well Bob regardless of your trading your words say you are selectively bias against OTCs
Geez, I can't believe we're going through this one again.
Let's make it quicker this time: Define "OTC"
SI Fires you and you have no problem with that and spin it as a layoff along with 250 people that were laid off
I was not fired. I was laid off. What's so tough to understand about that when the evidence is so easily gotten?
but I only know one check on a termination slip, not two
"Termination slip"? What on earth are you talking about?
HUH! Manipulate? Wrong?
Predictable.
SO tell me Bob just how did the SI Posse (your cronies) know you had quit, know certain events of your contract and know about internal corporate events like the bringing up of certains rules and policies in question to get public feedback?
Ummmm.... Define "cronies".
Ummmm.... How'd they know? Perhaps by reading and comprehending public posts?
Not saying or implying anything but questioning why Tony felt compelled to reveal an internal corporate matter.
I am no extortionist. I do, however, expect to be treated fairly.
Somehow I get the feeling that you're still too influential in true "policy" and being "spoon-fed" information it would be inappropriate to give you, and are being given a biased version of it.
I also am very curious why you think it is manipulation and wrong. Did it manipulate teh feedback and thus affect the
integrity of the feedback?
It had zip to do with "feedback". That's a rationalization being made up after the fact.
Otherwise, it's apparent that I and you (and others) disagree over the definitions of "manipulation" and "wrong".
However, since you refuted that you had anything to do with it and wish now to scream foul,
I screamed foul before "now". Why do you think I quit? Hmmmmm?
Again, I see nothing dishonest about what Kat did
Predictable.
Also I was one of your advisors during this time
Huh?
Does your cronies know you were using me for feedback on proposed rule changes?
Well, they do now. But just because you were one of 4 people to whom I pasted the same PM (my proposed "personal threads" rules) seeking feedback doesn't make you an "advisor" of mine.
I pasted the same PM to 4 different people who I thought would be most opposed to it either because of their apparent dislike of me as a person (you were in that category) or who have demonstrated opposition to "too many rules". I was seeking the feedback I expected to be the most critical, as that would be more helpful to me than "Looks good".
You are extremely bias against OTCs
Really? I'm loaded up on calls on one right now.
JXM, I have told you that he did NOT get ousted. So please don't write it as truth. Take the 'belief' out that he was ousted and it ruins your argument.
I am the one who quit. However, it's very arguable that I did so because of situations that presented me with no choice but that, so "ousted" is arguably correct in spirit if not in letter.
I also very strongly believe once we are over this Admin bump, you are going to see a very rapid improvement in the
quality of IH and the stream of new features to play with.
Where's the geek army that's gonna put in these new features? I spent a month and a half champing at the bit, desperately wanting to start implementing features. It ended up taking about a month for the company's total programming resources to finally give me the deletion-reasons dropdown and sorting deleted post in deleted-date order.
Something I learned a long time ago, and that I saw proven resoundingly at SI on numerous occasions, and that's happening again here is this: It's far better to just avoid talking about upcoming changes and features than it is to keep giving empty promises ("soon", "rapid improvement", etc). The former will anger people, the second will mollify them temporarily, anger them even more later, and hurt your cred.
I'd rather deal with a bunch of people who are angry at me than people who are mollified by my assurances but doubting that I'm as good as my word.
We talked about this at length before. If you want to impress people, don't say squat about the features beyond acknowledging (and properly noting) suggestions. Just implement them and let your actions do the talking.
A big part of Brad Dryer's credibility and reputation came from the fact that he rarely talked about new features but was awfully quick to implement them. Literally there would be times someone would suggest something that he really liked, he'd talk with people to get the whole picture for a few minutes, then go silent for about 10 minutes until Boom! His next post would be something like "Okay, I've implemented what we were talking about. This what you've got in mind?"
I don't know why I bother, though. Deaf ears before are likely deaf ears now, although I do see some of my more staunchly argued positions now being adopted as "policy" after the fact.
I guess I'm still clinging to the notion that you're basically alright and will be alright but are more than a little misguided right now.
Terms and Conditions of the Contract were agreed upon by both parties upon signing of agreement.
That's why I asked, as I was pretty sure that inaccurate public representations still don't free me from contractual obligations, even if only to refute the representations. I won't "defend" myself here by saying anything in violation of the contract, as it's not permitted.
At least in this venue.
If you are talking about getting a new alias and posting under it. We all (Bob, Me, Anthony, Lawyer) agreed to that.
Permission to respond frankly and truthfully without further reminders of the non-disclosure clause of my contract? I don't appreciate the intimation that I gave my approval to something that was just plain manipulative and *wrong*.
Edit: Nevermind. I don't need to explain. It would appear that those who would "get it" with my explanation already have without it.
Folks, what Anthony has covered, if somewhat inaccurately, is the primary reason I left. Or, the beginning of the end for me.
I wasn't too worried. I'd still have 25 pounds on it.
I missed the significance of the bolding in your original post and thought you were talking about it being a second thread for a security. My mistake.
Was it an OTCBB security? In one of my first few posts (I don't have the link handy, but it was in this board's header before it got zapped today), I rescinded that rule for all but OTCBB threads.
I'm told they have been, but I don't know which ones or even if it's true.
Yes, I am, but not all that much. And it's somewhat self-serving anyway, as I'm leaning more strongly by the day toward becoming a competitor (many want me to be and have offered financial and moral support), and it's easier if none of the sites are making a bad reputation for all of them.
Let's get out of cyber-legal-what-if land
One can never afford to do that. Deletion and revision are very serious things that can never be approached casually or capriciously. That also includes wholesale deletion of threads, btw.
But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Take notes, as I won't cover this a third time.
1. Make the registration process a little more involved. Make it a bit "painful" to have to go through repeatedly.
2. Require entry of a code that's emailed to the new user before they're allowed to post.
3. Use software (child's play to write it) to determine if a threshhold number of messages are written within a tight timeframe. If the threshhold is exceeded, temporarily suspend the account for admin review.
That'll catch the worst of them. Adjust as needed.
Ummmm.....
A thread header is a message of sorts and "not editing" is the loophole that affords message boards their CDA protection. As someone who doesn't want to see any kind of legal precedent that could lead to the stripping of CDA protection from message boards, I hope you're taking that into account before removing someone else's text and replacing it with your own. You're probably covered here, since you took out my name, but you're stepping into gray, uncharted territory and I hope you're doing so carefully. For all of our sakes.
Personally, I'd think it'd be safer to keep the original text in place and annotate it as such.
Edit: I'm referring to the same CDA protection that I was concerned capricious deletions might endanger, aside from the basic "wrongness" of such a thing.
Bob, you know what it was suspended for. We agreed to this last week.
But you can have it back to get your information. Just don't try to act like I did something you didn't even know about.
You really need to improve those paying-attention skills.
You suggested suspending the account last week. I suggested just changing the name, and we ended up agreeing to that.
I agree that it's between Matt, Anthony, and myself. I shouldn't have mentioned it earlier, but wanted to make very clear that there was no longer any remaining affiliation.
I would appreciate having my account back, as I was actively using it and was unaware of any violation of the Terms of Use on my part. And I was exchanging PM's with people via that account. I was also awaiting an important (to me) reply from a friend of mine in Florida.
That would be very unusual. People aren't typically suspended for posts that aren't deleted.