A few things I would like to add to the conversation...
First, there is nothing easier to do than to find someone in a group of people who will be more than happy to go to endless lengths to tell you why you can't do something and why, if you do, you are sure to fail.
Second, if you think you can't... you're right.
Third, whether or not the boycott is "effective" is entirely irrelevant. IMHO: It has already been a resounding success and it hasn't even happened yet.
Why do I feel this way? Because we already have nearly 1000 signatures on that petition... that's 1000 investors who have heard what was being said and took the time to sign. How many more heard and didn't sign? How many more will soon hear?
The point, IMHO, is not whether or not a boycott will bring for MM to their knees or immediately bring an end to MMM -- If you think it will do either, you are fooling yourself.
However, what t his has done with remarkable success is bring this issue/problem to the forefront. In a matter of a couple of days, this has gone from one person griping about the ask dropping on buys to a movement and an issue of public discourse. What more can you ask for other than the solution itself.
When an issue is in the public eye, there's plenty of noise being made and enough people "watching" to see what will be done, there tends to be action. The squeeky wheel gets the grease as the adage goes.
I understand where Georgia Bard is coming from, and I agree with a great deal of what he has to say. However, I also think he is being terribly myopic and trying, perhaps, just a tad too hard. The point of the boycott is to bringthe issue into public light and that has already been done with a great deal of success. To say that this effort is/will be innefective and pointless is absurd... it has already worked.
Scott.
AI
