Replies to post #2632 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Bird of Prey]

I did not say "Inside IHUB", I said insider. Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen's boys made a movie about exactly what I speak of.

David Weed
aka the Bird of Prey
www.warp-drive.com

[Anthony M]

There she goes again with unprofessional...very OVERATED, in my opinion.

I also don't think market fusion is a good idea.

Who asked you?

When people find out exactly who/what is involved, I don't think it will fly.

Time will tell, Place your bets...stop posting and decrease our traffic! That should help your point of view.
People have a choice to read, post or not come at all. NO one is obliged to come to InvestorsHub. It is their choice.

A. MarketFusion

[Georgia Bard]

I think you need to regroup...

I think ihub is going to h*** Time to share that market fusion plan with the world to let them know that market fusion is just paid stock promotion and ihub is part of it. and Market fusion is stock promotion.

Hmmm since you are stating this as a fact, would you please post a link or the underlying basis that will clearly show the proof. I would appreciate to know where Market Fusion has put out a promotion on a particular security Please. I would like to review the profile and the disclaimer for compensation.

jagfn like video/audio content which will be positive interviews with company ceo's and such.

So can it be assumed that all CEO interviews are pumps like CEO Cast, and others that do the same thing. Even CNBC has interviews with CEO and air them on national tv. All an interview is a Q&A sessions and some sites charge for doing the interview and some don’t. This makes no sense considering that all analysts are paid to compile information and they work for the brokers. This basically seems like a notion that no one should believe any CEO or any interview or any analysts write up or anything at all except what is posted in conversation on the internet. Why would anyone take the word of some on the internet over the business. However, the interviews are merely that Q&A not to be considered what you are making them out to be.

There are papers that do the exact same thing like Investors daily journal and others who get paid to run ads, news summaries and the profile stocks based on information they receive. If you can not believe the filings and what the Ceos are saying then why be in the market at all?

I do not see how people that do interviews are stock promotion and thus considered stock promoting sites. Further how can the site be responsible for what the CEO answers. Just like how can IHUB be responsible for content here. They are protected under the library law. If you send a negative to a paper there is no assurance that they will publish your comment especially if it does not have an underlying basis.

I became the chairman of umcc as a test, to see if ihub was still a pumpers paradise.

This implies that any positive discussion on stock is a pump (Lie, deception, exaggeration, fabrication, etc.) and no real information exists. However, the opposite side of the coin is are you also complaining about the bash (Lie, deception, exaggeration, fabrication, etc.) that is fraught on every thread. Posts that have no underlying basis are not discussions regardless or positive or negative. I find it very bias on your part your are not after posts to have a solid underlying basis.

I don't think ihub is being run by adults.

Since when is someone’s age an issue on anything, especially if they state a solid underlying basis. I thought you could not discriminate against some for they age, and other scenarios. The SEC does not discriminate as in the case of Lebed where they did not even get a complaint and charged and thus disgorged his profits. I thought it was information to get to the facts and truth by means of a solid underlying basis not baseless speculation, conjecture and innuendo. Even the SEC charges people for posting positive posts that have no basis for the projection. Is not the same law equally enforceable for the other side of the coin regardless of age.

Shorters only short overvalued stocks and scams.

I think that they do what they believe is such and if they get hung then they have a financial interest to slam the stock in order to get selling so they can cover. If they thought it was a scam then why cover at all when they could send the underlying basis for the scam to the SEC and thus a halt would be forthcoming and no need to cover at all. Same with overvalued. Why slam with such obsession if they can’t get selling to cover, the same principal.

jagfn also has no disclaimer. I've emailed twice and they won't even send me one. That is stock promotion. Not having a disclaimer is a SEC violation.

HUH … No Offense but I think this disclaimer says it loud and clear. “Today's research has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, however, Jagfn.TV cannot attest to the completeness or accuracy of such information. In addition, Jagfn.TV is in no way affiliated with such firms and assumes no responsibility for the substance of the advice and/or recommendations noted above. Questions regarding recommendations should be directed to the appropriate firm and or commentator / analyst.” Same as CNBC and other sites that carry merely information on the market.

Obviously, to help keep people from being ripped off, we should also post about it on the boards with the unlawful activity by the unlawful posters.

Is there a court of law that has fought the activity and the posters to be breaking the law or is it just a baseless opinion except for your bias emotional perspective.

who is ultimately responsible? The publisher.

HUH … the cases you make reference to were everything if I am not mistaken. So I guess CNBC is responsible for SOCT and all the awards, news coverage and all the analysts also that were paid by the brokers and maybe some by the company just because the company did a 4% convertible debenture the market did not like.. I do not believe the publisher is liable as merely a site for information nor the other scenarios because of the actions of the company since none of which are seers. That’s is probably why none are being sued.

matt, you and your TOS and chairman idea is controlling the content of the boards to the point of being able to manipulate the stock price.

According to this logic every chat site is guilty of allowing unfounded and baseless predictions and projections on both sides of the coin but they are not because of the library law. Also every post is the opinion of whoever and some have an underlying basis and some don’t … the post is responsible not the publisher. If the poster is compensated then they have to disclose not the publisher. Even advertisers are not and do not assume responsibility for the content of the client. They are merely the carrier not the author or creator of the information.

Threatening to sue people for posting their negative opinion is a real weak stock promoters trick.

I disagree since you are attacking them professionally they can sue you with out even showing damages and the burden of proof is on you to prove without a shadow of a doubt and in court if your opinions do not have a solid underlying basis they are merely conjecture, innuendo and speculation or reckless interpretation. Thus no facts and merely a reckless disregard for the truth, which a case for $650,000.00 was awarded to a doctor for the first time within the borders of the USA and he did not have to show damages. http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=33260 Not even on line can you get away with it anymore if someone calls your bluff to supply the underlying basis for your claim. However, most of the time the people being so reckless do not have a dime. But it still is no different that a P&D because it deals with affecting the supply and demand and thus the price of a security, which is illegal.

You seem to be extremely bias against any media information or corporate information and people should believe the baseless opinions of the internet. That goes against what every media and the market professional and even the SEC advises.

Strange reading.

:=) Gary Swancey