Bob is a fraud, and a criminal. At si he was in a conspiracy with the shorters. How it worked was he would get the tip on which stock was going to be shorted beforehand, take a short position, and then allow the shorters to go on the targeted thread and destroy it, not taking any actions against the shorters to further his gains. Then he was told when to cover, which he did. In addition, he stole money from si, and all of the above reasons are why he was fired, and told never to come back.
That would not be a deletion.
If it were posted a whole lotta times in my Q&A thread, it'd become harassment. If Bob were a (non-admin) member discussing stocks in a stock board, it's a delete because it's a personal attack. If Bob were the CEO of the company, it's not a deletion. It's relevant to anyone deciding whether to buy, hold, sell, or short the stock. If Bob associated with the company being discussed, it'd be relevant (no deletion). Same is true if Bob were associated with the company and was a poster.
But even though untrue, it's aruably relevant as would be the rebuttal.
And speaking from a personal (rather than admin) viewpoint, I'd *want* such a post to remain because I would want the opportunity to systematically tear it down, leaving the accuser looking the fool.
Speaking further from a personal perspective, someone was actually doing very much that a while back and I begged them privately to *please* quit couching it in "IMO", so I could have an opportunity to force them to prove the veracity of such statements in a venue other than a message board.
Which brings me to a question of my own for any legal types: If someone makes a reputation-harming untrue statement about you in writing, and prefaces it with "I hear" or "In my opinion" or "I think" or any other such qualifier, is it likely to make it less libelous?
