I think this board stands out from the rest, because we have very few manipulative posters.
For example, whether I am heavily trading in RSO or only holding my core position, everyone here knows my posts will be positive. Of course, I would just as soon the price did not go up too much when I am light, but I do not come on the board and say the sky is falling in an attempt to keep the price down or say the train is leaving the station to protect my trades.
Ken and Fred, both admitted they do not want the price to go up too fast. By saying so, they are not only being honest, but trying to avoid being manipulative. That is, we can read their posts (sometimes a bit negative - maybe unintentionally) and discount any small negatives precisely because they have been honest with all of us.
Unfortunately, there are some who like to try to manipulate the price - some overtly; others covertly.
As an example of covert manipulation, when Magdala is not fully invested, she ends up with a list of stocks with AGNC at the top and RSO a distant third (based on dividend). When I asked her to compare the stocks using price appreciation (her other interest), she threw a hissy-fit and attacked me.
Remember, this is a poster who likes to say nobody can predict the future, yet she posted these words this morning:
>"Buy now before it goes higher."<
How did she know it was not going to go lower - as it did? These "buy now before the train leaves the station" posts are extremely offensive to me. Not because she was wrong, but because of the misguided sense of urgency that scares people into making the wrong move.
Of course, Mag is not the only covert manipulator on the board (j_owley comes to mind). Suffice it to say, if your posts are sometimes positive and sometimes negative, ask yourself what has changed. Is it the company, or the number of shares you are holding?
I don't think the company has changed.
If we all try to be as honest as Fred and Ken, the board will be all the better for it.
Is AG a liar?
>"I suspect that the use of multiple yahoo accounts is a ploy to make himself look better."<
There are only three tdiamonds posts: Let's evaluate AG's claim as possibly true or obviously false!
Post number 1 is a response to an AG post, where I say "Now that's funny!"
Is that a ploy to make exdivy look better?
In fact, if it supports anyone at all on this board, it supports AG.
Post number 2 is a response to Who_dat, who asked where I got my magic ball. My response was "Actually I have two of them."
In the next post I explained the post was really from exdivy and why I was logged in as tdiamondsrb.
Is that a ploy to make exdivy look better?
Post number 3 is a response to AG that I immediately identified as exdivy in the next post, just in case AG has forgotten I have already explained to the board the alias belongs to me.
Is posting as tdiamonds, when I have already explained the alias is mine a ploy to make exdivy look better?
Three posts and not even a shred of evidence to support AG's obviously dishonest slur against me (perhaps the strongest supporter of this stock).
Next, based on his above-mentioned lies, he impunes any future post by another member of your board, longliveexdivy, and is supported in this completely unjustified attack on longliveexdivy by none other than Magdala.
Can longliveexdivy continue to post after being called an exdivy sock puppet? How would that make you feel (oh yes, you're next)?
>"This causes me to wonder how many additional accounts he may use that we are not aware of at this time."<
Well, obviously any poster who supports me or has supported me is now a suspect.
I could list many, many people on this board who have supported me over the years (and tdiamondsrb is not one of them).
Should you have to worry about your alias being vilified just because your views are different than AG's?
Who should be ashamed - who is attacking innocent posters - who is ruining this board?
You be the judge (the truth is out there)!
Ag, thanks again for a very cogent analysis. You always do it so well. However, as you say, only Exdivy can change his boorish behavior and that is highly unlikely since people who suffer from his mental deficiencies can never admit their mistakes. Hence, I'm leaving the board since there's nothing to be gained here anymore. This board bully, like so many on other boards, has ruined a perfectly good board. Undoubtedly, the bully will crow and say he won the argument because he has that need to make himself feel like the bully on the block. Ciao
Oh, AG, you poor little boy. You were just trying to protect everyone's interests by calling our CEO's family criminals?
I am afraid your post is just a little too lame for the real people on this board,
You failed to address any of the issues I threw in your face, any of the lies I exposed, any of the forked tongue lawyer speak, any of your equating our CEO's family to criminals.
As for your interest in the "question," you don't even know what the question is. One minute it's the "same sort of business decisions' and the next it's criminal behavior and antisocial personality disorder. ROTFLMAO
Do you really think people on this board who have their money invested in this company want to listen to you call the Cohen family criminals? Do you think your gossip and inuendo are enhancing shareholder value?
Do you think people here want to read your insinuations about the Cohen family having Antisocial Personality disorder? (As if you knew anything about anything you have written?)
I have challenged you time and time again to defend your foolish little posts, but you have failed over and over and over to man up and answer the questions. Do you not think everyone here now believes you are a coward?
You love to quote people and respond - what happened?
Do you think the people who read this board are that stupid?
Speaking of sock puppets, if I really wanted to look good, I would create one named AG, who would attack me with obvious lies I could prove were liesk along with the worst arguments in the world, and then call our CEO's mother a criminal.
Yeah, I would create you!
My primary purpose in responding to this ill-conceived thread was to come to the defence of j-owley and magdala, and then intrntl1. I am willing to absorb whatever insults may come my way for sticking up for good people and good questions. My secondary purpose in responding was to ask Ex Divy to modify his behavior.
It is apparent that Ex Divy has issues beyond those that can be addressed in this forum.
It is disappointing that he would start a thread like this with the intent to denigrate the likes of j_owley and magdala.
It is more dissapointing that he attacks a newbie like intrntl1 for asking a question that comes up several times a year on this thread.
It is dissapointing that he does not respond positively to requests to give people more leeway and to not attack the other posters here.
He admits that he created multiple sock puppets. I don't believe Ex Divy's explanations for posting under different names are very credible. Rather, I suspect that the use of multiple yahoo accounts is a ploy to make himself look better. I suspect, but cannot prove, that he is also longliveexdivy. This causes me to wonder how many additional accounts he may use that we are not aware of at this time.
It seems apparent by any objective standard that Ex Divy is behaving in an impolite and antisocial manner. It is also obvious that only he can change that behavior.
Exdivy I admire your continued patients with the postings in this thread. More -- much more -- than I.
That is what I like about you. You continue to take the high road, even when you seem to be there alone.
>"This particular paper analyzes 51 different studies that have been conducted testing for familial influences (both genetic and environmental) on criminal and antisocial behavior. The findings are that statistically significant correlations exist both genetically and environmentally. Before insulting people, calling names and overreacting the next time someone wonders whether the Cohens will screw the RSO shareholders as has been done at AFN, please remember that at least 51 peer-reviewed, published papers have asked similar questions."<
Given that some of those 51 papers were only concerned with criminality, it would seem that, here again, you are equating "mother Betsy, father Edward and brother Danny" to criminals?
Now for a little school (but first):
1. Please remember you are an attorney. You have not been trained in the sciences (your ignorance is obvious because of the way you invest).
2. I do publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am one of those "peers" asked to review scientific articles for publication in the top journals in my field.
I asked you a number of questions the other night, all of which you failed to answer. I assume your failure results from ignorance - at least that is what I thought, when I asked them.
Let's take your infatuation with correlation.
1. It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation.
It is the case that the number of Monkeys in a city's zoo is strongly correlated with crime rate.
So, you tell me:
Should we start throwing monkeys in jail?
(Before you answer, remember that Magdala does not believe in predicting the future, so you may be incarcerating the monkey who makes her stock picks!)
2. Of course, there are many nuances to consider when thinking about correlation, the second most notable being that one cannot extrapolate outside the range of variables that are correlated.
For example criminality may be equally correlated to genetics and environment, but you may not infer that anything else is correlated to genetics and environment - only criminaity, because that is the only variable for which you have data.
Indeed, number of monkeys may be correlated to crime rate, but one cannot infer from that correlation the number of trees is also correlated to crime rate.
Clearly, your reliance on correlations for criminality can only extend "criminality" to the issues you bring up about the similalrities among members of the Cohen family - that is, as an authority on the matter, you obviously believe some members of the Cohen family are guilty of criminality. The same can be said for Antisocial Personality Disorder (some of the papers only dealt with people diagnosed with that specific disorder).
I am sure we would all like to know what crimes members of the Cohen family are guilty of and which of the family members have been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Care to answer?
For some reason, I believe you will choose to hide in your cowardly little world rather than tell us the answers to my questions - got balls, Mr. Lawyer?
By the way, I used this "alter ego" to make sure that magdala and any others who supposedly have me on ignore will get a chance to see what they stand for.
I made it up the other night to use instead of exdivy, but inadvertantly used tdiamonds.
I may make up a new alias every time I post - you know, like,
I believe I have already demonstrated AG's dishonesty and lies beyond any doubt. Whether you like me or hate me, intelligent people recognize the truth.
Now I would like to defend myself against the rest of his post and expose tactics besides blatant lies that seem to characterize the lawyers in our legal system (you know the people all of the lawyer jokes are about).
>"It is certainly a valid question to wonder whether brother Jonny will make the same sorts of business decisions that were made by mother Betsy, father Edward and brother Danny..."<
Note, he begins this part of his tirade against me by identifying the issue as one of
"same sorts of business decisions."
Then he informs us of the following:
>"hundreds of research papers by professors and researchers from the finest universities in the land have spent countless hours asking the same question."<
As an example (after berating me for not finding this research on "business decisions," he cites a meta analysis and informs us,
>"This particular paper analyzes 51 different studies that have been conducted testing for familial influences (both genetic and environmental) on criminal and antisocial behavior."<
Note the typical "lawyer's forked tongue technique" talking about "business decisions" from one side of his mouth and "criminal behavior" out of the other side.
In essence, it would appear he believes "mother Betsy, father Edward and brother Danny" are guilty of some combination of criminality, antisocial personality disorder, and the antisocial behaviors associated with such psychopathology.
At this point, it would seem his so-called "valid" question has moved from "same sorts of business decisions" to various forms of sociopathy.
Sounds libelous to me (I will be forwarding these comments), but then I'm not a lawyer and am unfamiliar with the issue of libel.
I do know what sleazy means, however, and I believe AG's tactics (lies, misdirection, and assaults on the familiy of our CEO - our CEO's Mother for God's sake) is shameful.
Even more shameful is the fact that nobody on this board, apparently, has the balls to stand up for our CEO.