I believe many of you know NEVER to blindly trust what you read from the Internet.
In the case of my blog and chatbox, ESPECIALLY stock tips.
Unfortunately, in an area where money is involved (e.g. stock or other financial markets), there are simply too many unscrupulous sharks around.
The unscrupulous operates in a huge variety of highly imaginative styles.
One such area is the con artists. Whether actual or wannabe syndicates. The basic name of the game is blind confidence. Inspire confidence from a few successful trades (whether imaginative or real), have "others" proclaiming "full confidence in you", and then, one day, with the right stock, or at the right time, distribute. Blindly follow the tips, don't be surprised to lose it all.
It is for this reason that I don't advocate multiple nicks for the same person in my cbox. However, be warned that there ARE multiple nicks in my cbox, some of them lying dormant. With nearly 250 registered members in my cbox, and yet, less than 10% chat regularly, and when someone out of the blue comes out, be immediately suspicious.
Anyway, today, I had a surprise to discover that one of the regular chatters employed a multiple nick. The first warning was provided by "ivtac" several weeks ago that newbie and "StockGod" doesn't seem to be around at the same time, yet, from the content of what they wrote, StockGod idolizes newbie and was rude to fellow chatter Moolah.
Anyway, this is the exchange that triggered the alarm.
In the case of my blog and chatbox, ESPECIALLY stock tips.
Unfortunately, in an area where money is involved (e.g. stock or other financial markets), there are simply too many unscrupulous sharks around.
The unscrupulous operates in a huge variety of highly imaginative styles.
One such area is the con artists. Whether actual or wannabe syndicates. The basic name of the game is blind confidence. Inspire confidence from a few successful trades (whether imaginative or real), have "others" proclaiming "full confidence in you", and then, one day, with the right stock, or at the right time, distribute. Blindly follow the tips, don't be surprised to lose it all.
It is for this reason that I don't advocate multiple nicks for the same person in my cbox. However, be warned that there ARE multiple nicks in my cbox, some of them lying dormant. With nearly 250 registered members in my cbox, and yet, less than 10% chat regularly, and when someone out of the blue comes out, be immediately suspicious.
Anyway, today, I had a surprise to discover that one of the regular chatters employed a multiple nick. The first warning was provided by "ivtac" several weeks ago that newbie and "StockGod" doesn't seem to be around at the same time, yet, from the content of what they wrote, StockGod idolizes newbie and was rude to fellow chatter Moolah.
Anyway, this is the exchange that triggered the alarm.
Unfortunately for newbie, the IP address for both Stock God and "newbie" are the same.
And unfortunately again for newbie, when queried, his story is full of holes and inconsistency. Here are some of the exchanges:
18 Dec 08, 15:51 newbie: terry, he does not know that my nic is newbie
18 Dec 08, 15:50 newbie: sorry i gtg. Bye !!!
18 Dec 08, 15:50 newbie: Seng, my office is fully wifi and i have about 60staffs so he may use the same IP add with me lah
18 Dec 08, 15:50 Windsurfer: newbie, i'm disappointed at u man ...
18 Dec 08, 15:49 terryshannon: u told him about this forum, but he doesn't know u r his boss
18 Dec 08, 15:45 Windsurfer: newbie, this stockGOD is one of ur advisor ?? how come he talk to u as if he dont know u??
Some of the problems and inconsistencies are:
1. StockGod isn't a regular chatter. He rarely appeared at all. And yet, out of the blue when he appeared, there is no "Hi everyone"... instead he immediately called newbie a "boy" and "Newbie Boy" ... alarm bells ...
2. newbie claimed SG doesn't know who he is in real life. Yet Stock God never wrote recommending stocks in my chatbox as far as I can recall, and I'm always in my chatbox. So, how does newbie come to the conclusion that StockGod is conservative? I didn't even sense that StockGod is conservative, but behaved rudely to other chatters especially to Moolah.
3. newbie claimed to recommend SG to my chatbox, and yet SG has no clue who newbie is? When SG is supposed to be advising newbie on stocks that newbie fu-yoh here in my cbox?
Anyway, there are dozens of other inconsistencies if I want to pick it out, but it's more than enough evidence that this is serious enough prank.
Initially, I thought of just de-registering StockGod's nick, since it is more than obvious to me that StockGod and newbie are the same person.
Also, at the same time, I am ass-u-me-ing that newbie's call in the past has not created any harm, although as I write this now, I did remember at least once that I also lost some small money (because I bet small) following his PROTON call last year when he went on and on about how PROTON was cheap at $5, and his "inside info" tells him it's going to be ramped up. (I cut loss when it was obvious the move was wrong, but I don't know how many of the silent readers did that, and I also don't know how many bet big) ...
And many of the other chatters have also picked up the negative vibes from newbie's fu-yoh ...
This is a real shame, because I noted some improvement to newbie's behaviour since the last 1 week suspension.
Anyway, the issue is trust, so, after penning this, I have come to the conclusion that to try to preserve the integrity of my chatbox, I need to implement 2 things.
1. Ban newbie to set an example to others that these sort of behaviour are simply NOT acceptable in my cbox.
2. No stock calls - as a policy - are permitted. Discussions based on reasoning is of course welcomed, and if one needs to quote examples, then, it is acceptable, and reasonable expression of being vindicated when the stock price then goes right is acceptable, but UNREASONABLE fu-yoh and UNREASONABLE expressions will not be accepted nor tolerated.
I realize this may seem subjective and arbitrary, but then, membership in my chatbox is not a right, but a privilege. I expect reasonable standards of behaviour, but not when warnings are ignored.
Anyway, enough about this. The main purpose of this article are two-fold. First to remind readers, especially novice readers, that in the Internet, don't blindly believe what you read. Always apply common sense and critical and independent thinking.
Second, to let everyone know that such behaviour - as that displayed by newbie since last year, since his recent 1 week suspension, and especially his behaviour today - is not acceptable in my book. It is a real shame, because since last year, newbie has built up relationships with the regular chatters.
It's not so much that his behaviour today is especially dangerous to new investors or traders, but his duplicity, and the completely unacceptable behaviour of "StockGod" in my book. Even though Moolah was not insulted, I - as a chatbox owner - was insulted by the way "StockGod" talked to Moolah. Should any individual be allowed to insult others using a 2nd nick? Isn't the person behind both nicks responsible? Of course, I am also very dissappointed to have been fooled by newbie.
Hence, thinking about this as I write this article, I think it's only appropriate that I also ban newbie from the chatbox.
And I will not be surprised to hear more character attacks against me over the Net.
hi seng,
ReplyDeletealthough i have not been following today's conversation between fellow chatters and newbie here...
i am very sure that both SG and newbie did indicate that they know each other, from the past conversation here.
i remembered that either SG or newbie invited each other for teh tarik and i think SG joked about what car newbie will drive to take him out for teh tarik.
today, newbie insisted that SG does not know who he is, is simply BS-ing...
gotenks,
ReplyDeleteThanks.
I just noticed that Moolah also has an interesting post about Multiple Personalities.
The article is a good one, so, I am linking it here for future reference - http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2008/12/abuse-of-stock-blogs.html
The key quote is this: "Analysis of the abuse of social media — blogs, Wikipedia, message boards, etc — for the purpose of enabling illegal stock market manipulation."
Be wary.