Replies to post #922 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Was (Bob)]

Go to your room!

With that in mind, I'm curious to know how this is actually relevant to the dicussion. Nobody can refute or figure out if this guy is wrong or right. So how does it add to the "discussion"? That's what a discussion is about. A debate with some sort of intelligent thought backing it.

The implication is abundantly clear and the full force of the negative connotation was apparently intended, judging by the reaction of those chairing that thread.

"safely stashed" implies that it's put there for the express purpose of keeping it away from any legal claims against it.

then a significant amount of the people in the stock market would be criminals.

They are. No matter how tightly or loosely you define "significant", it's a true statement. And not just my opinion. Although my opinion is that the number of criminals in the market who have escaped official identification as such (via SEC or legal action) is an even more "significant" number.

But it wouldn't be correct to say "Many market criminals work offshore so all people in the market from offshore locations are criminals" any more than you can say "Apples are fruits therefore all fruits are apples".

But you do raise an interesting point I hadn't addressed. Note that the item I was quoting was item #7 in a list of items that nobody argues were relevant. The post was being removed because item #7 was considered either a "lie" or a "personal attack". We're talking the entire post and all of the stuff in it that nobody argued was irrelevant.

A post that otherwise is extremely relevant shouldn't be removed because one of the comments is irrelevant, if the comment isn't a personal attack against a poster. If I post information about a company and add that it's a beautiful day out here (which it is, btw), it's not a valid reason to remove the post.

The fact that a post that was blatant personal commentary about a couple of posters (and nothing more) was not deleted while the other post was repeatedly deleted leads me to one inescapable conclusion: Bias on the part of the chairman and a tendency to squelch information/opinions detrimental to his position and encourage personal attacks if they're used to discredit bears.

[marcos]

Couple of the various definitions of "offshore", from memory of speculative experiences on the old VSE -

1. lacking adequate transparency
2. lacking adequate accountability

Those are two things that it would behoove speculators to look for imho - transparency and accountability ... just speaking in general terms, i'm not familiar with the thread of which you are speaking ... but if an insider of any company in which i am interested has offshore accounts with which he plays the stock, or even has the ready capability to play the stock, i am interested in that fact, and yes would find it to be relevant, very much so ... hey, i'd be interested in knowing for sure if an insider's barber's aunt's ex-husband's poolboy's hairdresser has an offshore account, and whether he or she is playing the stock with it .... the more you know about this sort of thing you more you are capable of dissecting those 'unexplained' shareprice movements, which were rampant on the pre-cleanup VSE ... and haven't been completely eradicated there either, imho

It would also behoove a speculator to avoid applying the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle to the people whom he entrusts with his money ... stock market is not a court of law, it's a jungle with a lot of cash rolling around in it ... remember what Willy Sutton said about banks - well, in this day and age he'd likely be a stock promoter, lol .. cheers

ps - still getting logged out, twice in half an hour ... had to do the second window thing with this post, logged out while typing ... only a minor irritation though