Replies to post #20449 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[But Anyway]

If someone is repeatedly posting fabrications and otherwise disrupting a board where people are trying to engage in serious discussion, that detracts from quality, IMO.

Fabrications? You can't be serious! Peruse the history of the IHub e.Digital thread. What percentage of the "positive" speculation proved to be "fabrication"? 97%? 98%?

I believe, and the facts support, that an overwhelming majority of "fabrication" is contributed by the pollyannish "believers".

I challenge you to indentify two (2) of my posts that are "fabrications" and refute the "fabrications" with credible and verifiable facts (excluding statements from the management or directors of the company as they are biased in their intent).

For every two (2) you identify and refute I will do the same for twenty (20) from the "believers".

[WTMHouston]

If someone is repeatedly posting fabrications and otherwise disrupting a board where people are trying to engage in serious discussion, that detracts from quality, IMO.
And, fwiw, I used BA - but we have about 6 people or so that do what he does to one extreme or another - and not just on RB, but here as well. One of them - austonia - you put in jail yesterday.

Isn't that why Bob created the extensive ignore and filtering capabilities?

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/filters.asp

It sure seems to me that if someone gets under your (in the generic sense) skin that much, the easy solution is to just filter them out. That sure seems to an available solution to those who do not want to hear from those who are not true believers.

It, IMO, sure beats changing the basic format of I-Hub -- that all comments are welcome so long as they are civil. Calling someone a fool is, IMO, a TOU violation because it is a personal attack. But, criticizing a stock that someone else owns, even to the point of ridiculing the stock or the company, is not a personal attack. Those who take it as a comment that they are fools for investing in it, need thicker skin and the maturity to simply consider the source, if they consider it unreliable, and ignore it.

This is not RB and what someone has done on RB or elsewhere should not count for anything here, IMO. If they follow the rules here, they ought to be allowed to post on any thread their membership level allows. If anyone else does not want to read what they have to say -- FILTER THEM OUT. Sure seems easier and a lot less frustrating that all of this.

Matt and Bob: I suspect that if you allow this thread to control and limit its membership, then you will have a lot of folks on a lot of boards clamoring for the same thing. I join Phil in suggesting that it is not a good idea.

P.S. -- I guess I was not done butting in...... <g>