Replies to post #1911 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[JXM]

Hi Marty, I think I know what kind of post you are talking about. The kind where somebody makes an accusation and then the other person proves that the accusation was baseless...that's the kind, right?
============================================================
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=97267

How about over here.

I am asking you to back up your accusation.


http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=97151
Posted by: JXM
In reply to: marty_lewis who wrote msg# 1461 Date: 5/8/2001 5:44:07 PM (ET)
Post # of 1620

One thing to consider is that the unfettered attack that has been waged against Bob on this thread by multiple people, sets a precedent for what the attackers believe to be the proper rules of engagement.

I actually think that it is a good thing, because one of the problems that I have had with iHub's policies is that the integrity of somebody touting a stock is very relevant information and the current policies seem to consider attacking a person's integrity to be a personal attack.

What the people on this thread have said in a loud voice is that questioning a person's integrity is not necessarily a personal attack and it opens them up to the same scrutiny.

To this I say to the Bob Bashers "Good Job!!!!". This thread will provide a wealth of reference points on how exactly to attack their integrity in a manner that they themselves consider acceptable.

BRAVO!!!

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=97170
Posted by: marty_lewis
In reply to: JXM who wrote msg# 1590 Date: 5/8/2001 6:56:58 PM (ET)
Post # of 1622

you and your crowd have spent the last three years questioning everyone's integrity except your own. if there's nothing there about someone you target, you and your crowd fabricate things by asking questions that are really accusations but you put a question mark at the end of the sentence instead of a period. if that fails, you and the vigilantes make vague references to imaginery misdeeds, that only exist in your own minds. bob allowed this to run rampant at si, & he is allowing you and your friends to continue this behavior here. this site will NEVER be a success if bob doesn't change, and people will NEVER join in numbers as long as you and your friends are given free reign.

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=97178
Posted by: JXM
In reply to: marty_lewis who wrote msg# 1592 Date: 5/8/2001 7:15:02 PM (ET)
Post # of 1622

Are you absolutely certain that those are *my* tactics?

If you need places to look for links to my approach, let me know.

Here's one place to start (I make several posts on this thread, not one of them an attack. I wonder where CYSS is today)
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=9064807
==============

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=97200
Posted by: marty_lewis
In reply to: JXM who wrote msg# 1594 Date: 5/8/2001 7:40:32 PM (ET)
Post # of 1622

you posted to me, I posted to you. you imply that the problem here is with touts that are upset with si bob. I included you in my post officially, not the underhanded way that you included me in your post by making the post to me. I am not a tout, I am not a paid promoter, I don't get free shares, but I am questioning the whole bob scenario. that upsets you. I cannot help that situation.


http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=97220
Posted by: JXM
In reply to: marty_lewis who wrote msg# 1600 Date: 5/8/2001 7:55:51 PM (ET)
Post # of 1622

The difference is that I never accused you of being a tout. You did make specific accusations about my behavior. Did you read my posts on the CYSS thread? Did you find anything in my posts where I was questioning somebody's integrity? I attacked the business model. Please note that you say "you" in reference to me in multiple places. This is a direct accusation and I am asking you to back your accusation up with proof.

JXM on BIFS (several references of my posts starting from this point)
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=14289563
My actual first post on the BIFS thread
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=14282978


you and your crowd have spent the last three years questioning everyone's integrity except your own. if there's nothing there about someone you target, you and your crowd fabricate things by asking questions that are really accusations but you put a question mark at the end of the sentence instead of a period. if that fails, you and the vigilantes make vague references to imaginery misdeeds, that only exist in your own minds. bob allowed this to run rampant at si, & he is allowing you and your friends to continue this behavior here. this site will NEVER be a success if bob doesn't change, and people will NEVER join in numbers as long as you and your friends are given free reign.

[Was (Bob)]

Bob is a fraud, and a criminal. At si he was in a conspiracy with the shorters. How it worked was he would get the tip on which stock was going to be shorted beforehand, take a short position, and then allow the shorters to go on the targeted thread and destroy it, not taking any actions against the shorters to further his gains. Then he was told when to cover, which he did. In addition, he stole money from si, and all of the above reasons are why he was fired, and told never to come back.

That would not be a deletion.

If it were posted a whole lotta times in my Q&A thread, it'd become harassment. If Bob were a (non-admin) member discussing stocks in a stock board, it's a delete because it's a personal attack. If Bob were the CEO of the company, it's not a deletion. It's relevant to anyone deciding whether to buy, hold, sell, or short the stock. If Bob associated with the company being discussed, it'd be relevant (no deletion). Same is true if Bob were associated with the company and was a poster.

But even though untrue, it's aruably relevant as would be the rebuttal.

And speaking from a personal (rather than admin) viewpoint, I'd *want* such a post to remain because I would want the opportunity to systematically tear it down, leaving the accuser looking the fool.

Speaking further from a personal perspective, someone was actually doing very much that a while back and I begged them privately to *please* quit couching it in "IMO", so I could have an opportunity to force them to prove the veracity of such statements in a venue other than a message board.

Which brings me to a question of my own for any legal types: If someone makes a reputation-harming untrue statement about you in writing, and prefaces it with "I hear" or "In my opinion" or "I think" or any other such qualifier, is it likely to make it less libelous?