Forum Archive Index - November 2001

["Coaster" <coaster@paradise.net.nz>]

I posted this message on the 'other channel', and while you have responded to some of the other stockchat posters, my post elicited no comments. I would certainly be interested in any rebuttal you may have.

Coaster

 

"While some may think that slagging off those on the other channel (and this site) has no merit, I must point out that it does serve a good purpose.
Unjustifiable flaming is never a good look, but I think that when posters are 'ramping', whether intentionally or not, one of two post that add balance to the argument never go amiss.

Some will say that ramping doesn't have an effect on the market, but I'm of the belief that it does, albeit a small one. Certainly people are introduced to previously unknown (to them) stocks by posts on forums and some of these introductions lead to purchases of these stocks.

 

Dimebag's CLH investment may be an example of this. While I have no doubt that Dimebag would have carried out extensive research and made a decision to purchase CLH based on either the fundamentals of the company or technical analyse of the share price, there would be others that are not as 'sophisticated'.
You might say that 'unsophisticated' buyers that have made their purchasing decisions based mainly on advice from rampers deserve to get burnt, but new buyers (that would not otherwise be in the market) strengthen the share price and therefore put $$$ in the pocket of rampers. For this alone ramping must be seen as undesirable.

So while Gerry may just be an enthusiastic poster it seems to me that some of his comments show that a planned and premeditated scheme of 'expounding the glory' of PTD has been put in train, in my judgement, for the benefit of the 'rampers'.

But you must read the posts and judge for yourself (keeping in mind how bitter rampers become when their views are challenged).

A balanced argument leads to a balanced market."