Unfortunately, it appears when an investor asks a valid, but unflattering, question about the company or the CEO… they are labeled a “basher”. When did asking a valid question make a poster a basher ? Labeling a poster who asks a very valid question, and/or giving their unflattering opinion about the company or CEO a basher, is a tactic of the avid supporters of the company to discredit that poster. Its a very effective tactic (if you let it) to silence the poster. Its a “shoot the messenger” mentality for those who can not argue the merits of the issue being discussed. If the poster’s question or comment is valid, even though at times maybe crudely stated, instead of supporting a response with alternative facts, the responding poster attacks the questioner personally in an attempt to convince others that because the questioning poster is somehow flawed personally… the question has no validity. Many have seen this tactic utilized by Mr. Samblis also. We say nonsense !
Using the tactic of attempting to discredit the messenger is tantamount to playing the race card in a discussion about political issues. How many times have you seen those that would speak out in opposition of the policies of the president be labeled a racist. The theory is… if you disagree with the president, then you must be a racist. We say nonsense ! Placing a label on someone who disagrees with your position is an effective tactic (if you let it) at changing the subject. The discussion at that point is not about the issue at hand, but the NEW issue of creditability of the questioner instead of the issue. Don’t let yourself fall into this trap. If you let the attempt to divert the discussion to unrelated issues like labeling, you fall prey to their trap. They attempt to trap you because they are unable to argue the merits of the issue. They have no defense, perhaps because the issue is indefensible, so therefore they attack the messenger instead of the message. Pathetic and inexcusable in our opinion.
An additional tactic to quiet unflattering questions and/or opinions is the use of censorship. Censorship is also a very effective tactic used by those who can not debate the issues and seek to simply make the issue invisible, or so they think. LieHub is a prime example of the practice of censorship. Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes on the site will realize pro-PNCH comments are frequently deleted. Those that support PNCH find this practice unfair and unacceptable. Deleting an opposing view leaves the reader with an unrealistic, and perhaps an invalid view of the company.
The Investors Hangout message board is an example of the opposite of LieHub. Investors Hangout frequently deletes negative comments about PNCH. We ask… if the practice is wrong on LieHub… why is it not wrong on Investors Hangout? Deleting posts, it could be argued, is a tactic by those that have the power to delete postings to influence what others see. The deleted post is likely not flattering to their position or cause… so they delete it so that it can not become a discussion that may develop into something they don’t want brought to light. Here again, its easier (and perhaps equally as effective as changing the subject by labeling) to divert the subject matter because they likely have no supporting information to debate the issue.
Censorship will likely reveal and result in hypocrisy. Take for instance these 2 posts (click to enlarge):
And now take a look at this post:
See any hypocrisy ???
By reading those first 2 posts it would appear that attacking another poster will NOT be tolerated (and summarily deleted)… UNLESS (it would appear) the attack is in support of PNCH. Most will agree… this example is obviously hypocrisy personified. As we write this post, the personal attack seen above remains posted.
Folks… if you have a question or an opinion, don’t let the opposition curtail your voicing such. Make your point, support such with facts or justification, and don’t let others divert your attention off the subject matter by labeling you, or censoring you. There are far more outlets to express your opinion than message boards. AND… if you feel the need to attack the messenger, then you likely have an unsupportable position on the subject, or, you don’t have enough knowledge about the issue to respond. Do your homework, then respond. Attacking the messenger only shows that you are unable to debate the issue effectively. If you see a response that attacks the messenger, you know the responder has no ability to defend what they are attempting to defend. And the same goes for those that have the power to delete posts… ask yourself…are you abusing your privilege as a moderator in an attempt to force your own agenda onto other readers? If so… shame on you !