Does that make it "correct" for either side?
No, of course not. We should encourage open, honest discussion backed up by facts, and we should encourage it for everyone.
Regardless, your statement above indicates a bias. That "bashers" are "good" and CEO's are "bad".
No, I was simply reflecting what I've observed in message board dynamics. (I will say that most CEO's who post on message boards probably qualify as "bad", for a number of reasons, but that's a separate discussion.) Take Janet Shell as an example. Writes well, does good research, always backs up whatever she says. She's been targeted by law suits, called every name in the book, and been greeted with hostility on almost every board she's been on. I can't think of an example of a "positive" poster of her quality being treated like that.
None...not a single one...not even the super bashers...not even the King of the bashers, said a word about Enron or any of the other recent examples of corporate misdeeds
Actually, Mr. Pink has been all over Conseco, I'm sure there are other examples. But in general you're probably right, mostly because the OTCBB scams are much easier to figure out.
One thing that both longs and shorts seem to forget is that the market is a zero sum game
Depending on how you play the game, that does not have to be true. Zero sum only applies to a closed system, the market is not a closed system. Certain types of trades can be (e.g. options, futures, short term trading, etc.), but if I bought Microsoft at the IPO, who "lost" all the money I made?
AI
