#1, I posted a message to Joe in "..direct response.." to his post to me.
#2, I posted a short addenda to post #1 because I was interrupted by my granddaughter and the editting window ran out.
#3 I reposted #1, with some spelling corrections when the first two appeared to be missing (without a proper TOS reason).
The posts, had you actually reviewed them, were all proper in content and form, which should have placed them outside of the approved selections for TOS removal.
What we seem to have here is some selective enforcement based on personal predjudice.
John :-)
Here is the post which was deleted, please tell me exactly what is wrong with it - if you find it out of line:
Dearest Joseph,
Since you were so thoughtful as to respond directly to my discourse with Matt, let me expand on those matters - per your request. Prior to that, there is some confusion as to how RB TOS enforcement applies here on iHub - which has it's own set of listed TOU requirements - however, I'm certain that you will illuminate us on that inter-relationship directly.
Do you know and associate with a lot of known communists or RB admins? I'm not too clear on the policies or proliferation of either group, since Mr. McCarthy was a bit before my time. Although, I must admit to wondering about people like Jesse Jackson and his rather strange coalitions from time to time.
There were several matters associated with your epistle to the SEC that seemed a bit unusual. Your primary point was a concern over improper advertising by investment related firms and an effort to seek regulation or sanction against such activities. You consequently affirm that you were writing the letter as a private person. Why then is it, that you included the following in your closing: Joseph M. Jaros Jr. a.k.a. Joemoney Investor President/CEO of MarketReporter.com & United States Citizen..?? Many readers would tend to presume that you were: a) attempting to lend impetus to your presentation by including a commercial reference and employment status b) attempting to promote your own personal business via the SEC discussion c) attempting to garner free advertising for your firm based on the publication thereof on the SEC website d) failing to include a disclosure as to your non-professional status as an investment advisor.
Concurrently, the inclusion of United States Citizen in the closing was somewhat odd. The great majority of persons writing the SEC would be U.S. citizens, suggesting that only foreign nationals would need to so identify themselves - if they thought their letterhead and postage failed to communicate that fact.
Returning to your personal cross-references of RB (aka: the Raging Bull stock discussion system) another issue presents itself. Considering this post by you on the RB system: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=74811, it is somewhat difficult to get a good perspective on the values and responsibilities associated with your U.S. citizenship. Perhaps it is appropriate to recall the use of the term "..schizo.." (..not my term..) which appeared in several recent posts, as it may be germane.
You purport to suggest that the SEC should give special weight to the contents of your correspondence apparently based on your claim and/or declaration of U.S. citizenship. On the other hand, you publicly state that you would attempt to dodge a lawful U.S. military able-bodied manpower draft which you associate with being a communist ploy. I must admit I'm a bit confused as to which face you really wish to present under what circumstances.
If you really wish to assume the position of an ultra-left wing liberal, yet take up conservative issues with the professional performance of investment related organizations via the forum of the SEC, isn't it a bit contradictory to then caution fellow posters relating to freedom of speech...??
I hope these constructive comments are helpful to your ongoing efforts.
Have a very nice day.
John :-)
Park your Sub at the iHub - Bub; ....the experience might just "...float your boat..." !!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
