Thought I'd bring the following discussion over here where it's more on-topic and where other chairmen can see where I'm coming from on this particular issue.
You want me to delete a fairly mild personal attack and irrelevant post, such as:
"Josef and Mark should go back to the Police Accademy and not to invest in anything." (suggestion)
Bolding emphasis mine.
If a thread has established precedent of not allowing even the most minor "personal attacks" or used "any commentary about the poster rather than about his statements or the company" (not a direct quote, but the gist of how it's been done in that thread) as a definition, it needs to continue to follow that precedent consistently; not show bias by using it to remove bears' posts but ignore it in a bull's post.
Personally, I prefer that the standards regarding personal attacks be kept that tight, since it should minimize the eruption of full-scale flame wars.
However, note the word "irrelevant". A characteristic of personal attacks is that the commentary is irrelevant because it attacks the person, rather than contributing to on-topic discussion. We'll revisit this word in a moment.
Yet, you maintain that the following comment isn't a personal attack and should remain?...
"7) Don't hold your breath for Rich to step up - his money is safely stashed offshore."(statement of "fact")
Well, Bob, I strongly believe that the latter statement should be construed as a serious personal attack on the integrity and
honesty of a poster here...
Emphasis mine again.
A big difference between the two examples is "relevance". In this case, "Josef and Mark" are not associated with the company in question. "Rich" is. To put it another way:
"Josef has his money safely stashed offshore" -- irrelevant, Josef has no association with the company
"Rich has his money safely stashed offshore" -- relevant, Rich is strongly associated with the company
Note that the above examples apply whether the statements are true or false. It wouldn't change their relevance.
Regarding the "poster here" part, people associated with companies are "fair game" for commentary about what they do and don't do. Because commentary about them is "relevant". If Josef pulls down a million dollars a year and stashes it in his mattress, that's irrelevant. If the CEO of a company does, that's relevant.
A person associated with a company isn't considered any less an insider (hence, relevant) by virtue of his also being a "poster" here. Or to repeat my earlier statement about this, "A company officer posting here doesn't get immunity because he's posting here".
A person's "honesty and integrity" are very relevant to discussions of the company if that person is associated with the company. Whether or not he's a poster here simply doesn't enter into it.
Regarding "suggestion" versus "statement of fact", those aspects of the statements have nothing to do with whether or not the statements are relevant or if they're personal attacks. A statement that's a personal attack doesn't become less so or more so based on whether it's presented as a suggestion or a statement of fact.
Let's revisit the latter example again:
""7) Don't hold your breath for Rich to step up - his money is safely stashed offshore."(statement of "fact")"
Another reason I've repeatedly been told that this post should be removed is that it's "libel".
Says who? Me? No. I don't know whether the statement is true or false and will not allow it to remain deleted using that as the reason. What if the statement is later proven true? The site would be in deep doo-doo for having taken it upon itself to say "No, that's a false statement." My leaving it intact doesn't mean I think it's true either. Because the bottom line is that I (and the site) do not determine what is true and what is false.
I've seen plenty of lies posted about me personally here. How many posts have I deleted for lying about me? Zero. Even thought I personally know they're lies. Even in a case in which I suggested the person making those statements sue me if he so strongly believes the comments are true so I can prove them wrong in court.
If it's a lie, refute it.
One more point. A statement such as the above has a very strong reason for not being deleted. It's evidence of wrongdoing on someone's part. One of the following is likely true:
A. The former CEO has been stashing ill-gotten gains (implied) off-shore so it can't be touched.
or
B. The poster who said so libeled him with that statement.
I do not remove posts, even at the author's request, if the post can be considered "evidence" in any imaginable scenario, and that one certainly can be.
Comments?
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
