"Censorship" on Investnaire.com

[blakegallagher]

It was not on this Forum SFOTurtle.... It was a link to another investing forum that Kevin99 started and for his own reasons he unpublished the article that sleepy had written. TMC did not unpublish the article it was never posted in its entirety here (please do this or send it to me sleepy . I understand wanting full control of your articles and highly encourage you to start your own blog I am sure it would gain many readers .... in the interim post the work you have already done here ... I missed it and would love to read it in its entirety like many others here I am sure.

Blake

 

[SFOTurtle]

It was not on this Forum SFOTurtle.... It was a link to another investing forum that Kevin99 started and for his own reasons he unpublished the article that sleepy had written. TMC did not unpublish the article it was never posted in its entirety here (please do this or send it to me sleepy . I understand wanting full control of your articles and highly encourage you to start your own blog I am sure it would gain many readers .... in the interim post the work you have already done here ... I missed it and would love to read it in its entirety like many others here I am sure.

Blake

I stand corrected then. I just read competing posts about removing the article and the reasons given by Kevin, and it didn't seem in the spirit of TMC to remove the information because the one thing I love about TMC is that everyone can share their opinion, whether you agree with them or not. Now I understand. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[kevin99]

I appreciate the input here. I've communicated to sleepy privately and we will see how this can be handled. I do want to remind all of you that you don't necessarily know the whole rationals ( I share 80% of it), so don't assume it and come to strong statement.

BTW the article is "Unpublished", not removed.

Ok you guys push for it and making me looks like the bad guy. Here is the other 20% (alright I will give it in its entirety) I shared with sleepy:


On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Kevin Weng <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Robert,

Thanks for sharing the article. I've given some thoughts and I want to be honest with you.


If this is a private sharing of first hand experience, I think it has lots of value. Although a grain of salt needs to be taken.



However as a public article, I actually have a few concerns:




1. The source of truth is on the employee. I believe the employee is genuine about what he told you. However genuine does not mean truth or fact. The risk here is you choose to believe it is the truth and by publishing your belief, people trusted in you and buy your theory may not realize your conclusion is based on the employee (I know you have your own study, but from the article I didn't see how you arrive to your conclusion from your study).




2. It put the center of attention on the store employee, with store name and time so the employee can be tracked down by Tesla Company. As I understand it, the employee is not supposed to share those info with you. Even if he share with you, he certainly would not wish you publish in this manner. Will the article put the risk on the employee


What if the employee is very enthusiastic and have been discussed this with other customers, and somehow develop these number that he believe it is true, while they are not quite?




Therefore a couple of suggestions:


1. Present your study to show how you reach your conclusion. the employee account can only be validation at best. It can not be the primary basis.


2. Hide the store location so nobody get into trouble. Obfuscate the information so it is politically correct.




For these reasons, I think the prudent way is for me to unpublish the article and allow you to make those adjustment. The article is still there that you can edit.



Do let me know what think.




Kevin



​

To sleepy's credit, he did Obfuscate the store information.

Nothing personal. I believe everyone has good intention here. We are all in the Tesla camp so no need to resort to strong accusation.

It is a consideration for the employee and my principle on the right way of distributing information.

 

[SFOTurtle]

Ok you guys push for it and making me looks like the bad guy. Here is the other 20% (alright I will give it in its entirety) I shared with sleepy:


On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Kevin Weng <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Robert,

Thanks for sharing the article. I've given some thoughts and I want to be honest with you.


If this is a private sharing of first hand experience, I think it has lots of value. Although a grain of salt needs to be taken.



However as a public article, I actually have a few concerns:




1. The source of truth is on the employee. I believe the employee is genuine about what he told you. However genuine does not mean truth or fact. The risk here is you choose to believe it is the truth and by publishing your belief, people trusted in you and buy your theory may not realize your conclusion is based on the employee (I know you have your own study, but from the article I didn't see how you arrive to your conclusion from your study).




2. It put the center of attention on the store employee, with store name and time so the employee can be tracked down by Tesla Company. As I understand it, the employee is not supposed to share those info with you. Even if he share with you, he certainly would not wish you publish in this manner. Will the article put the risk on the employee


What if the employee is very enthusiastic and have been discussed this with other customers, and somehow develop these number that he believe it is true, while they are not quite?




Therefore a couple of suggestions:


1. Present your study to show how you reach your conclusion. the employee account can only be validation at best. It can not be the primary basis.


2. Hide the store location so nobody get into trouble. Obfuscate the information so it is politically correct.




For these reasons, I think the prudent way is for me to unpublish the article and allow you to make those adjustment. The article is still there that you can edit.



Do let me know what think.




Kevin



​

To sleepy's credit, he did Obfuscate the store information.

Nothing personal. I believe everyone has good intention here. We are all in the Tesla camp so no need to resort to strong accusation.

It is a consideration for the employee and my principle on the right way of distributing information.

And I agree with concerns about outing an employee who could be reprimanded or worse for sharing information that is not intended to or should not be made public, especially if the target audience of the publication (and unbeknownst to the Tesla employee) are folks who are trading in the stock. This I agree with.

 

[dsm363]

This trend of censorship is not encouraging for open dialogue on this forum.

Can you point to examples? Your entire post was removed on his site, not TMC.

 

[dsm363]

I stand corrected then. I just read competing posts about removing the article and the reasons given by Kevin, and it didn't seem in the spirit of TMC to remove the information because the one thing I love about TMC is that everyone can share their opinion, whether you agree with them or not. Now I understand. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Great. Just saw your update.

 

[sleepyhead]

And I agree with concerns about outing an employee who could be reprimanded or worse for sharing information that is not intended to or should not be made public, especially if the target audience of the publication (and unbeknownst to the Tesla employee) are folks who are trading in the stock. This I agree with.

I did not write anything there to "out" an employee. I even used the wrong day of the week to protect the employee, but that is not important. I actually commended the employee several times and he plays a big part in my article. The employee makes the article a story and not just a boring article (at least in my opinion).

I thought hard about Kevin's feedback and I pretty much disagree with everything except for the fact that if someone wanted to play detective they could possibly figure out who the employee was; but you would really have to look really, really hard to find out.

In the end this is just an article on the internet, which nobody is going to read. That is the beauty of the internet, you can post whatever you want. I think that people need to lighten up. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

The more I think about it, there is nothing wrong with what I wrote. The only thing that gives me pause is that employee. I do not want him to get in trouble, and I don't think he will. In fact I have gone out of my way to praise the employee and shuffled details around so that he could not be found.

So, I told Kevin I will make changes to further protect the employee. But he wouldn't post it anyway.

To be honest if Elon read my article and found the employee that I talked to, I am fully convinced that Elon would sooner give him a raise or promotion than fire or reprimand him.

 

[Discoducky]

Respect to all and hope that when we all can meet and count our money at TESLIVE 2014 we'll be able to look back on this and be assured that we did what we did for the right reasons:

1. Protecting the source. Doesn't matter what you might think may happen if the source is uncovered. The source is the prime directive of protection.
2. Investment advice is just that; Advice! Nothing more, nothing less. No other implied benefits. Even though Kevin and Sleepy have both made me and others a boat load of profit.
3. Keep it real please. The investment conversation is really benefiting and especially now (debt ceiling) we need eyes on the ball.

Thanks again to all!