Replies to post #4395 on The Jailhouse (JAIL)

[jmhollen]

When the discussion, +/-, becomes a contentious, continual, re-run battle it needs to stop.

The board managers, who know the company/people involved, are in the best position to make that decision. If they have to take the same action twice(+), it may be time for Admin review.

The matter I am addressing is stopping board-destructive "..bash.." battles, which have trashed several boards here on iHub. Being able to put a stop to the battle, if only for 14 days, would have provided normalcy - and let everyone cool off.

If that concept bothers you, you may be part of the problem.

Are you the Creator, Chairman or Director of any iHub boards..??


John :-)

Park your Sub at the iHub - Bub; ....the experience might just "...float your boat..." !!

[Bird of Prey]

For that matter, I've seen many more "vendettas" launched against so-called "bashers" who turned out to be completely accurate in their appraisal of the company than I have seen launched against CEO's who turned out to be honest upstanding citizens.


Does that make it "correct" for either side?

Should basher bashing be outlawed because some of them turned out to be right?

Should we declare "open season" on CEO's because some have been corrupt?

As with any group there will be both "Good" and "Bad".
Of course it is wrong when vendetta's are practiced, regardless of which side one is on.
Regardless, your statement above indicates a bias. That "bashers" are "good" and CEO's are "bad". Certainly some bashers are "good", some bashers are "bad". Equally some CEO's are "good" and some CEO's are "bad".

What I find amazing is that for all of the "bashers" running around out there (some BB issues have several), None...not a single one...not even the super bashers...not even the King of the bashers, said a word about Enron or any of the other recent examples of corporate misdeeds. Are we to believe that these men had completely clean slates and there was nothing for the "researchers" to find? Surely with FBI agents in one's back pocket it could have been discovered if any of the recent shady CEO's had left clues to their future criminal behavior in the past. Or are we to believe that only CEO's of OTC-BB companies meet that criteria?
One thing that both longs and shorts seem to forget is that the market is a zero sum game. The long buys believing the stock will go up from a seller that believes it will not go up. Sometimes that seller is shorting. What I find immensely humorous is that when someone identifies themselves as favoring the short side they expect to be treated favorably by their opponents favoring the long side (and vice versa). To me that's akin to expecting Offensive and Defensive linemen or boxers to say nice things to each other before proceeding to beat each other up.
FTR, I agree that "holding a position" in a company should not be a criteria for being "allowed" to post. Then again neither should "basher" or "tout" be a issue. One thing about Boxers and Football players though, at some point, either before during or at the end of the contest...they respect their opponent more often than not. Observation indicates that many message board posters...do not.

The Bird of Prey