And herein lies your problem.
Yeah, because I don't candy-coat the true nature of IDCC
You are so caught up in the fact that your opinion is the correct one, you are impossible to discuss anything with. And you subsequently force your "view" on everybody at every opportunity you get. That's what is so annoying about you.
Even those who have begged you to leave them alone. (The ignore function doesn't block you from replying to their posts and have your posts show up in their box -- which I hope to fix)
While I've got your attention (I'd normally be asleep with tickle me Elmo, but wantobe is spinning some great tunes tonight), I've got a question about your review of us:
What does one want in a investment discussion forum? I think it can all be condesed into two categories. 1) Technical (speed and reliability) and 2) Content (perceptive and unbiased). Yes there are other considerations but they pale in comparison to these two major ones. IHub has better than average reliability and speed thanks to the uncompromising and thoughtful management by resident PC geek "Bob". In my two or three months of using the site the speed has actually improved due to a new server and reliability has been high as well. Bob spends the extra time to insure his code is as efficient as possible and that appeals to my "engineer" side as well as being very practical. Unfortunately, all the speed and reliability in the world won't do an investor one bit of good if the content is sub-standard. I'm sorry to say that iHub has a history of losing some of their best and most unbiased posters due to internal politics and strict but non-uniform policing of the content. Matt, who is the founder of the site and fulfills the role of policeman, judge, jury and jailer, is not as impartial as is required to maintain credibility in such an important role. He maintains order and compliance at the site using the age old tagtic of fear. Fear of ending up on the wrong side of Matt and/or being muzzled in the local jail are the primary motivators to encourage people to post "appropriate" content. Unfortunately, "appropriate" is a highly subjective word. This appears to have the unfortunate result of creating a very "clique like" atmosphere throughout iHub. That might be fine for some (especially if you are still in High School and happen to like Matt's style). However, for serious investors who want the straight scoop or for those who simply want to pleasantly unwind with a few knowledgeable friends after a hectic day it is less than ideal situation. Most troubling is a strong sense of double standards that are imposed on participants. If you end up on the wrong side of the head cop, watch out, the rules will be different. I have participated in a number of other stock discussion boards and have never seen the type of heavy-handed and inconsistent moderating that occurs at iHub. I know of a number of valuable contributors who felt they could no longer tolerate the erratic arm of the "law" and left for more open pastures. The overall effect can feel quite claustrophibic at times. On the positive side, Matt is usually quite dilligent about weeding out any four letter words or personal attacks. If this is a service you value highly and you are not concerned tabout the potential impact it may have on the content then iHub may become your new home. In hindsight I wished I had inspected the situation more carefully, tried out the service as a free subscriber for a year or two to insure it was the sort of place I would enjoy before I commited and plunked down $129 for a lifetime membership.
Care to name any of these people that we have lost or won't particpate here? I'd be very interested to know you feel is valuable, that we have lost.
Thanks for the compliment, btw.
