I have been following the cuu story on SH and Agoracom for a few years now. I am very bullish on cuu, holding several hundred thousand shares in 11 trading accounts spread between two brokers (I remember how poor Vette was criticized for stating that he used multiple accounts).
For what it is worth, it is my observation that there are four main types of posters on these boards:
- bashers - consistently negative with an obvious agenda, usually misleading and citing unsupported "facts".
- pumpers - consistently positive with an obvious agenda, usually misleading and making extravagant claims (I am thinking here of the SH poster who repeatedly posted the same share valuation at $132).
- optimistic investors - genuine investors who are generally positive, with limited acknowledgment of any negative factors, not having any obvious agenda.
- pessimistic investors - genuine investors who are generally negative, with limited acknowledgment of any positive factors, not having any obvious agenda.
Speaking for myself, I am probably optimistic/pessimistic with an 80/20 split. I actually think that could lead to poor investment decisions, I think a better mix for me would be 30/70 (way more pessimistic than optimistic, leading to taking much more care with investment decisions).
The reason I mention all this is that I value both optimistic and pessimistic input from genuine investors. I wouldn't want to see anybody banned from this or any other board, simply because they stated negative facts (accurately) or negative opinions. I totally support banning obvious bashers and pumpers, anyone posting with an obvious agenda.
It helps me, when I am reading these posts, to consider whether the poster fits into category 1, 2, 3 or 4.
neo
