Mary I do not want info from the market fusion business plan but when IHUB creates the sites for these companies and take rent or advertising compensation for bandwidth and megbyte space that is what it is and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Yes there will be a disclaimer from the attorney to protect IHUB from information supplied that may be a con, or scam or creatively expanded on. If not I will personally ask where it is. Until then it is not an issue.
Now if IHUB authors any material that is a different scenario and requires a whole different type disclaimer.
INTEGRITY ... now we are getting to the center of the overall concern of both sides (yours and mine). Whether positive or negative, I consider the integrity of a poster and if a solid refutable underlying basis was supplied. Most of the time it is not.
I read the ECNC filings and did a personal analysis and was threaten along with reference to my family. I caught the CEO fo MIDL and blew that whistle and the SEC took my testimony which resulted in not only charging but disgorging the promotion firm even through I was the IR. I author nothing and the responsibility is the one supplying the facts. That is why in the MIDL case P&D was not the charge but "Scalping" because he sold into his massive newsletter. I did not sell inot the volume. That would have been wrong and because I knew the letter was forth coming.
In the case of CNHH I was the IR and was replaced with an IR/PR combination and I voiced my concern about the integrity factor of having one source being one. No check to the promotion. I also quit instantly. Later I discovered not only what I felt was wrong to the right people a Fed judge agreed and rescinded everything for the last two years. Also the PR/IR was posting under an online alias which I exposed also as a private investor and was not disclosing who he was an the relation to the company. But to date I have not seen the SEC make any charges.
I agree that going to $30.00 is a crock and so is it is going to .01. both are equally irrespnsible and typically do not have an underlying basis to make such speculation.
Tell them about a glitch and making the whole mess that was made is two differnet issues also. If I had discovered it I know it is corporate information and not for public display in any regard. A simple email of what you found would have been all that was needed to IHUB. However, what blew up out of it was interpretation of reading insider corporate information. That is wrong anyway you look at it.
As far as emotional ratio heck that is questionable on a lot of people that post and compounded especially by their obsessions. Mostly those that never post on stocks just character assassinations and FUD tactics. No one understand the MO for these types especially since most have a total disregard for the turht but more so on building a Urban Legend.
Shorters have control of the market right now and they are plenty of bashers to prove it. Innuendo, FUD, SPeculation, innuendo, conjecture and ever negative tactic in the book is used and rarely is there an underlying basis or a factor of integrity. This is the other side of the coin to a PUMP and shorters make money on bashing. They both are just as bad in my book. Both sides of the coin.
Your case on Jag is extremely weak and I think the attorneies know what they are doing to protect the site. If an analysis comes out with an authored opinion then it is that author as with the CBNC lady. They are responsible for their Due diligence and promotion. The market has a black out on OTC stocks and so OTC do not have a level playing field. Now a lot of OTCs are not worth a grain of salt but promoters can move them. SOme are pumps and some aren't. There has to be a deception for it to be a pump. Maybe it is a scalp I do not know but that is a cmplaint for the SEC. Most of the time it comes on the internet in an obsession scenario because it can;t be proven or the SEC would have nailed it.
Now you make an interesting point here. If a site controls the content to the point of filtering it so that it helps out certain affiliates, advertisers, partners, I think they should be held liable. Look at SEVU. Negative posts were deleted. Someone was there warning that there would be a shareholder lawsuit and francois was pulling those posts. Shareholders could have been warned and sold. The format of these boards prevented that from happening. Only happy talk was allowed.
So you think that shareholders should have sold on the leak of a material event that would affect the price of the security. That paragraph and opinion is a direct violation the fair disclosure law of Oct 15, 2000. Why should only internet posters get the upper hand on information why not the entire public. I am sure that not all posters who own SEVU follow that thread. Thus because it is a prelude to a material event that could or couldn;t happen it should be deleted to be in comliance with regulation FD. Also what if people had sold and it was not true. Who is responsible for it not happening.
See your arguement is weak because even now you state you want sells and oppose anything that causes buying. I do not understand this one sided scneario. It should have been deleted until a case number or solid underlying basis was produced and then why was it not put out through proper channels so everyone (the public, financial world) could all see it.
This is what is scary in your concerns.
That is only if the companies try to get the id of the posters. Companies are now taking other methods to get the IDs.
I think you last paragraph is completely bias. You stereotype small companies that already have the deck stacked against them and have very few avenues they can pursue. Most IRs are extremely fraught with integrity but I can't say the same about promotion firms. Because you believe the way you do I cannot see where you can make a proper analysis on anything.
This seems to conclude that you are exactly what you hate on the other side of the coin. We some pump without basis you slam without basis and both do not have any integrity.
:=) Gary Swancey
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
