For those banned as rumor producer

[ta2693]

There are some ppl in this forum who banned as rumor producer. It was said they are made claim without solid evidence. But the following market movement prove they are right. Should we say sorry to them and allow them come back?

I think they are innocent by telling us what happen in market and because the following marketing behavior support their claim, I doubt their claim should be categorized as rumor. They are more likely to have better information source.
Those ppl should be welcomed by us.

 

[Joe Blow]

Re: For those was banned as rumor producer

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Nobody has ever been banned from ASF for posting a rumour.

Reprimanded, yes. Had a post removed, yes. But banned, no.

However, I stand by our policy of not allowing people to post any information they claim or imply is privileged.

 

[Kimosabi]

Re: For those was banned as rumor producer

I heard a Rumor, that there was...... a 'Rumor'

 

[wayneL]

Re: For those was banned as rumor producer

I heard a Rumor, that there was...... a 'Rumor'

I heard that rumour too.

 

[Joe Blow]

Re: For those was banned as rumor producer

I heard that rumour too.

I heard you started that rumour. But that could have been a rumour too.

 

[wayneL]

Re: For those was banned as rumor producer

I heard you started that rumour. But that could have been a rumour too.

Lucky I wasn't banned then!

 

[Joe Blow]

Re: For those was banned as rumor producer

Lucky I wasn't banned then!

I would have made you ban yourself!

 

[YOUNG_TRADER]

I heard something too

 

[INORE]

exerpt from

http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/ldr/foclsep06.htm

hmmm perhaps if there isnt maybe there should be a 'market rumours' thread (aka HC) where we could track some history to rumour.


Conclusion
In a 'postscript' to the judgment, Master Sanderson notes that 'in an area of the market where rumour is rife, material information must be disclosed' and that if there is any doubt about whether or not information is material, the company ought to err on the side of caution. Therefore, from the dual perspective of ensuring compliance with the continuous disclosure requirements of the Act, and minimising litigation risk from shareholders, companies that operate in speculative industries (such as mining, medical research and pharmaceutical industries) may need to be particularly cautious when considering whether or not to disclose information to the market.

While Jubilee Mines was decided on an earlier manifestation of the current disclosure provisions of the Act, Mr Riley's success is likely to encourage shareholders (or, following the recent encouragement by the High Court of litigation funding, groups of shareholders) to bring claims to similar effect under the current provisions of the Act.

 

[dubiousinfo]

I heard something too, but I didn't believe it. Maybe there was something to it after all.

 

[rub92me]

There are some ppl in this forum who banned as rumor producer.

How about giving us some examples? Making statements like these without any sort of substantiation should be banned :

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

perhapes you would like to share this "rumour" with the rest of us unenlightened people

 

[Pommiegranite]

perhapes you would like to share this "rumour" with the rest of us unenlightened people

There's a rumour going around that rumourmongerers are starting threads accusing ASF of banning rumourmongerers.

Hold on...that's not a rumour

Funny word when you think about it...."rumour". I don't think I know what it means anymore.