There is always the democratic process where those who invested to hopefully realise a profit have a quiet opinion as to the merits of their actions and perceived merits of the product.
Balance that with those who see their perceived side and feel it is incubant on them to warn against investment for reasons not made totally clear or arguments that lack evidence for investors to base sufficient opinions on.
A point in subjectivity that I had a problem with could be:
This is a high risk penny stock run by a con man who has lied his way into all of our pockets
Be sure that I'm not against either side or anyone who posts on here or any comments that are made. This post is to highlight the importance of comments being backed up by credible factual links or proof, etc. and confusion that can be generated.
My reasoning becomes confused because I can agree that "a high risk penny stock" just about covers most like stocks and would warn me of a risk to investigate first, whereas lack of any claims, actions, evidence, etc "run by a con man" being made available or presented is confusing.
The written comment is serious?, open to legal actions?... so surely I should take more notice of this comment?.
Better not to invest in the first place if the CEO is a 'con man' and "who has lied his way into all of our pockets. Does that make all investors to date gullible? .. which I cannot accept. I've read too much on here over too many years to be able to accept that comment?.. so maybe the CEO is not a con man after all. Was I wrong there?
Add to that: "all of our pockets" given that most of the 'against' side wouldn't have invested in the first place and you can see how important it is for all of us to provide accurate proof of our written comments.
Any comment from either camp could be confusing if there is no justifiable proof backing it up. This board is a good board with clarity.. which I will hope continues or increases.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
