Online
|
|
All your promotional messages have been deleted by our moderating team. Please do not post such messages henceforth. Please read our "M3 Code of conduct" and adhere to the rules while posting messages.
http://mmb.moneycontrol.com/india/messageboard/code_conduct.php
-MMB Moderator...
shreeni73 bhai........Go to my space and long on this page dear....
All your promotional messages have been deleted by our moderating team. Please do not post such messages henceforth. Please read our "M3 Code of conduct" and adhere to the rules while posting messages.
http://mmb.moneycontrol.com/india/messageboard/code_conduct.php
-MMB Moderator...
All your promotional messages have been deleted by our moderating team. Please do not post such messages henceforth. Please read our "M3 Code of conduct" and adhere to the rules while posting messages.
http://mmb.moneycontrol.com/india/messageboard/code_conduct.php
-MMB Moderator...
Legal consequences ? Have you lost all your marbles ?Do you in your little mind think Criticism of a FAILED call by YOU is a offence under IPC .? hahahaha . go ahead - Sue the world for commenting on the 93 failed calls you made since April 11 . Seriously , at 45 years of age & being jobless & having no business or funds to invest has damaged your idle brain completely Vipul . Dont you have any shame .Instead of being apologetic that you made 93 junk prediction on the trot on mmb in last 13 months you start threatening people for criticism of your junk calls . You need medical help for megalomania & a job in that order !!!...
My appology...I wrongly typed your name.....I am extremely sorry Tondon Sir.....Kevin96...
Tondaon Sir, Very well said. You are 100% correct. It is easy to blame others but to correct anybody is really difficult. Have a nice day....God bless you.....Kevin96...
BEAUTIFUL THOUGHT :
Be someone kind, someone approachable and you will be admired.
Good Morning, everybody on \\...
Dear Sandeeep,
You have every right to exercise your plain-vanila option of offence marking under CoC #6 or CoC #3.
Instead if you your retaliatory itself is a serious violation of CoC #1, in my view your offence is no less serious.
I do feel pleased to revisit my issue with valine that you have referred to.
I had taken up the issue with Valine when I felt he may have violated CoC #6. But I did not mark that offensive. I confronted him to authenticate the information with a source link. When no response came, I requested Moderators to authenticate the "mentioned facts". At this point valine himself very gracefully came forward to commit that in future, he would always give a supportive source link whenever he would post factual informnation.
At that jucture I did acknowledge that valine had raised the bar of excellent conduct a few notches on that day.
I continue to hold my this humble view.
TondonA...
Dear Sreeni73,
I have absolutely no intention /interest in taking position on either side of this divide. In my view, it is for the Moderators to take a judgmental call about the true intentions of a boarder.
If I am taking a position, it is against the increasing tendency to personally target the fellow boarders in an offending way. I am also taking a position that CoC MUST be respected in letter and spirit, no matter what.
You claim that SC01 is holding multiple IDs - Kevin96, MadonaB, etc. etc. Similarly there are counter claims about multiple ids against the opposite camp too - Churchilforshares/elradoc/markethawk/wisetrader; galarajesh, Biharibull, motilalagent et al - sometimes even Mist. All of these respectable boarders have been targeting SC01 and his supporting IDs. The issue of claimed multiple-ids is an irrelevant issue - there is no listed offence under CoC for holding multiple IDs - I hold additional openly and these are fully declared, also well known to the Moderators.
The trouble arises when the clones are used to violate the CoC #1 while the main ID keeps within the bounds of CoC. And it is well on record that the above IDs have been doing so, we all know. It is in this context that I hold a view that the moderating policies and the CoC itself seems to have become outdated and need a review.
Nevertheless, the existing CoC needs to be respected fully. Unless SC01 and his supportive IDs have been consistently violating the CoC despite warnings from the Moderator, the continuing redflagging is NOT justified.
It is in this context that you have voiced objections to his trading calls. And I have a different view, which is well reflected in my earlier posts.
I had objected to SC01 claiming offence when Sandeep had put on the board a collection of SC01`s messages. I hope you would not have forgotten. Same way, I do maintain my objection to some from the boarders community grouping up against SC01 for expressing his trading calls.
SC01 has very much a right to express is view of trading calls - as much as being given by thousands of boarders every day. No matter even if these trading calls appear to be downright stupid to some of you. No matter even if these are stupid calls.
You too have full freedom to put your counterview - even bring out the mistakes in his calls openly - but you should not be doing so in an offending /abusive manner. The fellow boarder`s self esteem need not be attacked.
You say that my freedom of expression ends where your nose begins. I do agree. But if my expression is not directed at your nose, and you yourself have brought your nose directly in line of my expression - then you cannot state that I have violated your freedom of expression. That distinction needs to be kept while claiming offence.
So long as the person has not been aiming to hurt your nose, he is entitled to his freedom of expression.
TondonA
...
