Interesting Wary.
The underlying, toxic, issue here is about the forum becoming a campaign platform (for various agendas) and a place to accuse and attack other posters, and drifting far far away from being a place for constructive discussion about the company.
I made the rhetorical point of "prove it" because there IS NO proof; at least I know this as fact in relation to the accusations about me. Constant repeated accusations and claims being made by some here. Unsubstantiated. Untrue.
You also said yesterday iirc that it was interesting that tutor and myself had engaged in discussion on the forum of another company, implying, apparently, that there is something "suss" going on e.g. we are somehow connected, because that company is also shorted(?) - well, I know for a FACT that there isn't anything suss, and we are not connected in any way, so this is just simply more speculation without any proof.
Yes, I can see the apparent correlation about CS etc that you describe, but that is certainly not proof of anything either, by any means. An observation, a possibility. Fine. You left it at that. Great. But, as you say, some are now treating it as "fact" and continue to harp on about it almost daily. I cannot speak for tutor and don't know of his involvement with CS or not, my point was that there is relentless and continuous accusation without proof - i.e. unsubstantiated claims and repeatedly breaching the TOU.
Secondly, when and what I have posted provides no proof whatsoever that I am in some way connected to the company, paid to post here, or in any other way motivated by anything other than wanting to see reasonable and well-supported viewpoints and discussion about the company and its prospects. I am here to learn and share information and assessment about one of the companies I am invested in. Simple. I also call out BS, question peoples' reasoning, and expect fact-based analysis; so what? Again, I know for a FACT that these claims about me are all unfounded speculation (as they are absolutely false), which are also being claimed by some as being "true" on a regular basis, just because I sometimes question their (and some others') ability to gather fact-based evidence before making assessments and bold claims about the business or its management.
It has gone way beyond someone just mentioning some wild speculation about another poster - it is now effectively a (another) campaign to continually discredit others as "one of them" or "the enemy", based on blatantly untrue and unsupported claims, and even false accusations about one's shareholding or motivation. Now it's even being suggested that I need to somehow prove that I'm a genuine retail shareholder... what a load of absolute BS! Sounds like we're in primary school.
So I choose not to blindly follow all the herded company bashing, given how unreasonable/unsupported it often is, imo. If people can't handle being questioned on their conclusions or claims, asked to provide substantiation, or being called out when they make nonsense claims that they can't back up, then they should think more about what they post, imo.
There are many examples. Take the top20 list nonsense. So much ongoing and passionate complaining that the company was being so secretive, hiding the list from the public, somehow supporting withholding info about major holders, breaching laws, wanting to charge some arbitrary +$1000 fee etc etc, which was easily refuted by a bit of research to actually establish what the rules, process and costs ACTUALLY are to view the share register. People happy to whinge, not prepared to do the work. It was 99% BS. Any holder can view the register, for free in some cases. I showed why and how, and posted all the associated rules and processes and contacts. Suddenly all that anger and hate towards the company on this topic (and all the nonsense "conclusions") could only be funnelled down to "well, yeah, but they could at least choose to share the top20 list more often then, like some other companies do". People don't like being called out like that. What I did was nothing to do with "defending" the company; purely a fact-finding exercise, to work out what was ACTUALLY going on. Nothing, as it turns out. It undid all the fear and FUD and hate though, and the BOD-bashers didn't like that imaginary wind being taken out of their sails. So... turn it into "hate on GCar" because he likes facts and we just want to blame someone for our investments that haven't gone as we'd hoped - why is he not just "supporting" us, he's a shareholder too..? Absolutely ridiculous.
Regardless of whether the chairman is MR or Mary Poppins, me questioning attacks on the BOD and chairman is about reliance on flaky evidence and assumptions to hang specific people, when little is known about their individual performance - like I've said before, how does anyone here know whether MR voted for the A40 investment or against it? They don't. That is not "defending" the chairman, it is calling for reasonable assessment and supporting fact-based conclusions, and avoiding assumptions when you simply do not know. Making BIG decisions wth little detailed basis might not turn out so well, and there is no ctrl-Z when/if one realises it might not have been the best idea. That is not defending the BOD, it is questioning hasty conclusions and the need for proper evaluation before seeking an alternative that may make us worse off. That is also not saying that all the BOD's decisions have been great - NOT AT ALL. Questioning a view, or its basis, DOES NOT simply equate to supporting the opposite view. Although assuming that it does, comes in handy when one wants to paint someone as being "against" other holders, as we are seeing lately, on this forum.
Anyway, as per the mods' advice, I am reporting any and every post that contains garbage personal accusations and claims (as should everyone), as it is simply a toxic and divisive strategy that has ZERO place on these forums.
Like I have said many times, if anyone has issue with any points that I (or anyone) make about the company, the sector, or any information that is provided to lean on regarding the future prospects of this company, then address those specific points with an alternative view/assessment and associated substantiation and analysis. It cannot get any simpler than that.
When some people here instead resort to constant personal attacks and unfounded accusations, and simply cannot refute points being made about the company or its prospects with well-reasoned discussion, it simply and only shows that they have no real points or contribution to make, or are focussed on some other agenda or campaign.
All this other nonsense is simply dragging the forum into the cesspit it currently finds itself in. Surely that is apparent to everyone here.
(btw Wary you will note that much of this is in no way directed at you; at least you seem to be able to differentiate and articulate the difference between "wild speculation" and "fact", which is refreshing)
Expand
