chronic stubborness maybe
Probably. I'm not absolutely inflexible, though. I do change my mind from time to time and reverse earlier admin decisions.
However, "stubborness" could also be "not wishy-washy". I don't go "Yeah, you're right and I'm wrong" everytime I'm challenged.
Being at least somewhat stubborn is a job requirement.
I also agree that posters did stalk you over to the iftp thread, and bob should have stopped it.
Had I known about it (that's kind of a prerequisite), and if it were harassment, I would've stopped it. If they followed him and posted on-topic about his stock, then no problem. My definition of "stalking" includes harassment. So if someone follows you to the thread of your favorite stock and posts there, it's not stalking, even if they reason they're there is that you post there. That's the whole idea of why profiles show where you're posting.
I don't know that I want to post on this thread that much, because to me this is just a slick way to ignore people's views.
Nope.
The other thread was where people were able to have a one to one with bob,
The only reason for wanting to keep it on the other thread that I can think of is if destruction is the motive. I was getting hobbled in my job duties by what was happening there, and the usefulness of that thread was being utterly destroyed.
If the members cannot post on the thread where bob hangs out
Replace "post" with "be destructive" and you've got a more accurate portrayal of what was happening.
what purpose does it serve to voice concerns about him here other than to make people THINK (pretend) they are doing something about it all?
Your comment about hippies wanting to change the world works both ways. It's no less valid to post to this thread about the issues people have with me. Filling up the Q&A thread with it is only destructive. It's the hippies barging into your pad, smoking all your stash, and pouring out your lava lamps onto your beanbags.
But if some other site is actually *better* because I'm not at it and we can click as we please, I'd think that some of the folks who really want to effect change would vote with their clicks; not just destroy what they have a problem with.
Look at the overall actions of both "sides". The majority of the people who are on record as despising me or having a problem with me (all 4 or 5 of you) use the tactics like posting enormous volumes to give the appearance of it being a majority issue, post destructively, make all kinds of accusations that have no basis in fact, though they're presented as fact, and never acknowledge when their "facts" get shot down. They just move on to the next "fact", and add to their total without subtracting where appropriate.
Have you seen the "other side" do this?
I haven't.
is it my imagination or do they seem to want to get rid of all the people that were here before they and bob came
I can't speak for others but it's really irrelevant who anyone else wants to "get rid of". Who I want to get rid of would be relevant, and I don't want to get rid of the people who were here before me. I've met some terribly cool people here who I'd never met before and I hope they stay. I'm not biased against people for having been here before me.
But there are people who I want to either get into a way of thinking that won't doom the site to the continued lack of traction it had before or get rid of them if that's not possible. I'll make no bones about that.
The ones I am most interested in "converting" or "showing the door" first are actually a far smaller number than people elsewhere seem to think: Those who want to use the CoB feature to control the positive/negative ratio of discussions on stocks. If those people are allowed to continue doing that, this place will never be of any consequence at all. To me, that's the highest priority issue for me to deal with. It's not a particularly tough one, though, as I've found that better than 95% of the folks with access to the delete button are not abusing it. Nothing less than 100% is acceptable, though. If even one person squelches opinions contrary to their financial position in a stock, the site as a whole has zero credibility.
Second on my list are those who author huge volumes of posts but never discuss specific stocks or the market as a whole. This'll never have a chance of being even a noteworthy stock discussion site if too many people use it as nothing more than a generic chat site.
I have zero problem with general banter or specific chat about non-market things, even if there's a lot of it, as long as it's being done by people who also post about stocks and are here because it's a stock discussion site. The market needs to be our main common ground if this site is to be more than an eventual historical footnote. That's my opinion anyway. And I got the job because of my vision for what the site can be and it's my responsibility to help make it what we all know it can be.
I wouldn't be here if I thought an acceptable goal were for InvestorsHub to be the best and busiest overall chat site. My goal here is for us to be the best stock discussion site. For now, let others work at being the best overall or the best in other areas of special interest.
Third on my list are spammers, but as long as we can thwart them pretty quickly, they're not a problem.
post #1 of this 6-hour period and I'm back to work for a while. Later...
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
