My thesis is about non share holders ...., page-8

“If that isn't your idea of the purpose of HotCopper, then what is?

A place were people get together online to high-five one another and pat one another on the back?”

Now that’s a great entry point for me to get something off my chest.

My idea of the purpose of HC is where people come together to share views. Most of us come to learn. Some are able to teach. A biotech board is a good example where differing backgrounds and experience permit contributions around fundamental analysis, technical analysis, the principles of finance and wise investing (thank you @madamswer), the application of statistics (and @Southoz), and the understanding of technical aspects of human disorders (and @hodgsop). Others deserve our gratitude.

This is also a place for good humoured and entertaining contributions along the line of videos that often are very pertinent to the topic in hand, as well as being entertaining in themselves.

Pleasant banter and gentle teasing can contribute to the enjoyment.

What has no place on HC is the attitude of “we know better than you poor fools”. That teaches us about the character of the perpetrators but nothing about what we come here for. When a humorous and light-hearted contribution is answered by derision and contempt we are seeing the actions of a bully. Distasteful and inappropriate. It leads to the inevitable conclusion that such a poster comes here not to teach, not to learn, but to self-aggrandise. I say that the opposite impression to aggrandisement is achieved.

The latter point is a pity because sometimes useful information can be hidden in the venom. A recent example relates to MSB’s phase 2 CHF results. It was pointed out quite correctly that post-hoc analyses are fraught with possibility of error. Investors in biostocks subject to trials must be aware of this. Note I stress possibility. The critical post presented it as evidence that the trial had failed. Utterly false. And misleading to less sophisticated investors. Just breeds confusion. The quoted statistics don’t prove a conclusion either way. The trial did not prove efficacy but it did not fail. We will not know about the efficacy of stem cells for CHF until phase 3 results are in hand. There is a similar example with regard to diabetes.

It is true that many posters here, myself included, leap upon preliminary evidence of possible efficacy and high five each other and pat each on other the back. That’s normal and fun and it’s OK as long as some up-ramper doesn’t crash the party and mislead investors. And there’s plenty of sober views offered that should counter that anyway.

I close with another quote from @madamswer: “For I know that I benefited tremendously from contemplating the differing insights and opinions from HotCopper members who have different experience and skill sets to my own.”

That’s how it should be. My comment is not about people strongly expressing and defending opinions. I welcome such and benefit from it. I am talking about how some people say it.