The Question and Answer Board

[Was (Bob)]

Go to your room!

With that in mind, I'm curious to know how this is actually relevant to the dicussion. Nobody can refute or figure out if this guy is wrong or right. So how does it add to the "discussion"? That's what a discussion is about. A debate with some sort of intelligent thought backing it.

The implication is abundantly clear and the full force of the negative connotation was apparently intended, judging by the reaction of those chairing that thread.

"safely stashed" implies that it's put there for the express purpose of keeping it away from any legal claims against it.

then a significant amount of the people in the stock market would be criminals.

They are. No matter how tightly or loosely you define "significant", it's a true statement. And not just my opinion. Although my opinion is that the number of criminals in the market who have escaped official identification as such (via SEC or legal action) is an even more "significant" number.

But it wouldn't be correct to say "Many market criminals work offshore so all people in the market from offshore locations are criminals" any more than you can say "Apples are fruits therefore all fruits are apples".

But you do raise an interesting point I hadn't addressed. Note that the item I was quoting was item #7 in a list of items that nobody argues were relevant. The post was being removed because item #7 was considered either a "lie" or a "personal attack". We're talking the entire post and all of the stuff in it that nobody argued was irrelevant.

A post that otherwise is extremely relevant shouldn't be removed because one of the comments is irrelevant, if the comment isn't a personal attack against a poster. If I post information about a company and add that it's a beautiful day out here (which it is, btw), it's not a valid reason to remove the post.

The fact that a post that was blatant personal commentary about a couple of posters (and nothing more) was not deleted while the other post was repeatedly deleted leads me to one inescapable conclusion: Bias on the part of the chairman and a tendency to squelch information/opinions detrimental to his position and encourage personal attacks if they're used to discredit bears.