Quote from: popejubs on January 09, 2015, 04:08:11 AM

Quote from: ikeboy on January 09, 2015, 03:55:19 AM

Quote from: eightcylinders on January 09, 2015, 03:43:15 AM

Quote from: ikeboy on January 09, 2015, 03:21:15 AM

I would say that people take it personally because they trace the causal links of their losing money directly to these quote fud unquote articles. Plus the us vs them mentality, which probably isn't that widespread on shareholder boards.

The fact that so many of the HT folk "take it personally because they trade the causal links of them losing money" to CF and CT reports is what is bizzare IMHO.

Consider an analogous situation .. suppose a blog like TechCrunch started publishing repeatedly bad stories about the new iPhone... detailing bugs, missteps, broken promises, etc. and that Apple's stock took a dive after the phone was released amidst all the bad PR.

Even if negative articles were wide read and quoted, I could not imagine an irate shareholder (even a total Apple fanboy) threatening to kill the author of the article. In fact, since that kind of negative PR happens all the time, usually the response of an a shareholder who thinks that a company is being unfairly targeted by bad PR would be to view the dip in price as a huge buying opportunity... since eventually Apple would prove the naysayers wrong (in the fanboy's mind).

So again, why the rabid dog attacks on a news blog? If the poster really thought it unfair and untrue, they would be thanking CF and buying more XPY, waiting for Josh to prove everyone here wrong.

The vitriol directed by those folks on HT against the discussion here is strange to me. If its not a cult, I just don't understand what motivates such behaviors.

Quote from: ikeboy on January 09, 2015, 03:21:15 AM

Fun experiment for you to try; go to one of those forums for "get rich quick with stock signals and technical trading" bullshit, and quote the studies showing that technical trading doesn't cover fees on average. Then come back here and let us know who was more vicious.

I have done this in meetings with so-called analysits. Yes they are unperturbed, arrogant, poorly educated and angry at the questions .. I probably don't have many friends left who read Investors Business Daily lol ..but still no one has threatened violence for my insolence to date.

You say meetings; if that means in person, then people do tend to be more vicious when anonymous.

The causal link that I think people are drawing includes the supposed "dumpers", and they may blame the news articles and blogs for gaw dropping the $20 floor. However justified or not that is, it seems to me to be that belief which is pushing these actions.

In your example with Apple, nobody expects Apple to fail because of those kinds of articles; hell, even when Apple breaks the law they can afford the fines. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/25/apple-fined-670000-in-taiwan-for-price-fixing/ (This is one of the smaller fines that they've gotten.)

There are people that genuinely believe that Gaw might fail now but wouldn't if not for these articles and related attitude. I mean, if paycoin was at $20 right now, Gaw would have a chance at pulling this all off without screwing anyone.

Is that a better job of tracing other people's minds?

Note: this is starting to get off-topic, so if you want to follow up on this, pm me.

Why do you continue defending someone who has admitted to allowing his investors to make financial decisions based on misconceptions the company they operate knew they could or should have corrected?

I am not continuing to defend gaw. Look at the original context of this conversation. We were discussing the underlying psychology of people who are sticking with gaw.