Got notice this morning. Seems shorts are finding any reason to mark a comment as abusive and have the editors delete them. Funny. Are you shorts really that desperate that you are afraid of any discourse? LOL
Here's the recent one that got deleted.
Mr. Jackson, I believe your article was perfectly timed with a short attack on the stock. There is an appearance of intent when you bounce your publication time against the intraday chart. On the other hand, many of your claims seem to have been already very well addressed in previous articles by PropThink, Red Acre, Brian Wilson, and others. Even some of the sources you cite, appear to be cherry picked for specific items that could be negative out of context. One example is Dr. Favus' Investment Research papers. I see my previous comment (first comment on your article) was deleted. Let's see if this one sticks. Dr. Favus wrote a very lengthy research paper discrediting the 13 short thesis (or risks) just a month ago. It was rather detailed and very long. A week ago, he wrote a very small 4 bullet bulletin, that said regardless of his previous work, he saw the potential for some short term weakness in EPS due to a new reimbursement center that Questcor is creating. It's entirely possible that could have a small potential impact on EPS, but since he is your source, why did you not use his expansive other efforts to bounce the other 'risks' against. As for me being a pumper. I provided a reference guide with links to everything I could find the last 3 months. You might want to take a look at it and click some of the links. Some of them actually have information in professional journals that discredit the old headlines you linked to. All the best!
I am doubtful that seeking alpha is really a neutral party. My experience suggests they will do anything for money. I have been under monitoring there for over a year, with all my comments reviewed by monitors before being allowed up, because I repeatedly said one of their authors was a just trolling for clicks since he was posting 30+ articles a week (an article an hour!) linking to multiple popular tickers but providing no real information. Not only did my comments turn out to be acceptable to seekingalpha, but they booted me for saying so! (Yet, I see now that all articles and all comments by that "author", Cameron Kaine, have been deleted if you try to search their site, maybe too many complained, LOL)
But over a year later any comment I make is reviewed before being posted and rejected if I say anything critical of seekingalpha. It seems their criteria is not abusive behavior, but anything that might reduce their income. IMHO they want to wipe out any traces of opinions that they aren't worth $1000+/yr for their "premium" service. Personally, I think they will do anything for money, and that might have a bearing on why certain comments are deleted and certain articles are selected for limited distribution through their premium service.