Dear HPQAnon,

Thank you for posting.

You seem to be a first timer who joined just to comment on this issue.

Thank-you.  I am honored that you did.

Allow me to address the essence of your posting which I believe is essentially to question the necessity of my sometimes-colorful responses to what may seem like an innocent question/post. In my defense I think you would agree that these responses are few and far between. Nevertheless, they do occur.

In the spirit of openness and honesty I must admit that I believe if my Mother read some of these posts she might consider disowning me. That is because my Mother believes that the world is full of good people, with good intentions, and that if we think otherwise it is because there is some sort of misunderstanding.  My Mother, thank goodness, has never had to deal with manipulators of the sort that roam amongst us in forums such as Agoracom. 

I have also been brought up to believe in the words most often attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.  My Father would often quote it when, as a younger man, I had issues with other’s opinions.  He taught me that freedom of speech had to be defended at all costs even if it was not what we agreed with…actually, particularly if we did not agree with it…. with one exception: If that speech was made with the sole purpose of knowingly misguiding the uniformed and innocents into making decisions which would ultimately hurt them, and which they would ultimately regret.  In such cases I was taught that it was our moral duty to come to the defense of the defenseless insofar as we were able to.

Take the above in the context of this forum, Agoracom, where I actually pay and encourage people to post I, by default, take on the responsibility of ensuring that the principles I was brought up with (freedom of speech, and defending the innocents) were not ignored.

Furthermore, my conviction that a CEO’s responsibility to his investors does not end the moment he has pocketed their hard-earned cash, also is driving force in some of my colorful responses. I believe that a CEO has a responsibility to not only address valid questions from investors (no matter the size of their investment), but it also extends to protecting those that may not have the experience to gauge friend from foe. 

I also believe that if a CEO is to benefit from the structures that enable the easy transfer of funds from those that have, to the companies that need then, by default, these same CEO’s have a moral obligation to protect those same structures from manipulation.  The implied moral contract from using these very structures demands it. Regretfully, not enough CEO’s have the intestinal fortitude, conviction, or moral fabric, to do what it takes. Regretfully, too many CEO’s feel their responsibility to investors ends the moment they have pocketed their hard-earned cash.

 Sir Winston Churchill once famously said, “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.”, and I would agree. However, once in a while, I am sure Sir Churchill would have agreed, certain dogs deserve a well thrown and targeted stone. If for no other reason than to shut the rest of the dogs up.

…and that, my dear HPQAnon, essentially sums up the necessity of my few and far between colorful missives.

With respect to your concern that there may be some that come upon my rare posts, such as the one you noted, and draw a wrong conclusion, then so be it. I appreciate your concern, but I cannot compromise my morals in the hopes of not being misunderstood, or in the hopes of being liked by those that I do not care to be liked by.  That is not how I roll.  I much prefer to be appreciated by people like yourself who took the time to read all my writings and came to “…love everything about the company…” including even me.

Hope that Helps

Peter