I've read enough to know that this is largely considered a "dropped" topic, but since, in a former life, I often dispensed my own views of what's proper netiquette, and those views were sometimes relied upon, I'm going to weigh in here. Apologies in advance to those who don't want to see it.
Jim, you shouldn't have been sending an email that CC'd the recipients rather than BCC'ing them. Whenever I get such emails, I read the sender the riot act because publishing a list of email addresses is something that consistently results in abuse of that list. Beyond Once's email(s?) it's a safe bet that if the list was large enough, it was harvested by others as well, and will result in those email addresses getting spammed. There's a lot of money in lists of valid email addresses.
You screwed up on that and you know it as well as I do. Chalk it up to experience and learning because that's all that can be done about that aspect of this issue.
Once, your turn. Sending an email to a list of people who you know full well do not want to receive email from you is just plain *wrong*. Were I in your position, the MOST I would've done is sent an email saying something like "FYI, you screwed up and now I've got all of your email addresses. But I'm an honorable chap and will not abuse the opening left by this screw-up aside from this email letting you know so you'll be more careful in the future."
Everyone else, you're way off-base claiming that Once "stole" this email list. It was emailed to him. He owns it. He can do with it as he pleases. Proper netiquette (which is so lacking these days -- thanks to the fact that every idiot and his dog can use/abuse the internet nowadays) demands that he not mis-use this list and not invade on it to further his agenda of "salvation", and any attempts to use it that way would, IMO, reflect poorly both on him and his message, but the fact of the matter is that he can do as he likes with that list and from this site's point of view, what he does with that list is utterly irrelevant.
Once and the IDCC crew: Speaking only for myself (and remember that I'm not the administrator here so my opinion on this is irrelevant but given anyway), I could give less than two sh*ts whether IDCC is the next Microsoft and Once is representing a huge short interest trying to prevent that from happening, or whether IDCC is a cult of KoolAid drinkers who Once is trying to save from themselves or save others from taking a sip.
What I DO care about is that people opine freely (in the appropriate place) about the stock and the company, and keep the conversations ABOUT the subject; not about each other. And, very importantly, that inappropriate deletions are NOT happening. This site is not a "clubhouse" and has no provisions for those kinds of boards to exist on it. It's all public-access and because of that, only posts that violate *our* rules (not the moderator's rules or wishes) are deleted. I don't know if Once is the flaming asshole he's portrayed to be by so many people and really, whether he is or isn't is irrelevant.
He has opinions about the company and I feel very strongly about his being afforded the privilege of expressing those opinions and having them be seen by those who want to see them. And each person deciding for themselves whether or not they want to see them; not having that decision made for them by others.
Everyone has the ability to filter out his posts from their own view. Nobody should be making that choice for the public, even if it's ostensibly "for their own good". That's not for anyone, even us, to decide. This is not that kind of website.
Those who wish to use any part of this site as a place for only specific people to carry on discussions are definitely in the wrong place and should start their own site or a board on any of the forums that are built for "clubhouse" type boards. We're not one of those places.
And this is NOT a condemnation of the way IDCCers are overall. It's a very vocal minority (almost all free members, which strikes me as terribly ironic) that's complaining the most about how some sort of "entitlement" on their part is being impinged by our allowing Once to post even though they can easily pretend he doesn't exist.
For the most part, I've observed civil discussion on that board by mature people who DO discuss positives and negatives. It's definitely not that, like it would be on some KoolAid-drinking OTCBB boards I've seen past and present. The vast majority of people on the IDCC board conduct themselves in a very appropriate manner for an open-access site. The "problem" is a small number of extremely squeaky wheels. And, more recently, wholesale and inappropriate post deletions. At least, inappropriate from my current perspective and I'll admit I don't have all the facts nor do I really care to have them all. After all, this is all just my opinion, and most of it irrelevant.
One last thing, which kinda sums up the above. If Once continues to abide by this site's rules, he'll continue to be able to post on it, just like anyone else. That is our decision and nobody else's. He'd do well to get a bit introspective (if he hasn't already) and make sure it's not his approach rather than his message (you can't save people if something about you pisses them off so much they won't listen). Had I been the recipient of the email I saw, I'd be pissed and inclined to not listen, too.
But anyone who doesn't like his existence here should just put on the (free) blinders that make him invisible and shut the hell up about it already.
I've said my piece.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
