Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Yahoo! - Is back to post CENSORSHIP on it's LOOK Finance board. (2)

"You dope, this has nothing to do with LookSamrt, stupid ramper." (sic)

I find it strange that as a non-shareholder he is permitted to voice an opinion but myself (a shareholder of some 8 years odd), am NOT permitted to voice mine?

Today's reply post: Re: Microsoft and AdECN

I find it all fascinating and really, it is in knowing some of the "facts". Part (1)

IF companies have "un-official" board-watchers it then becomes a process of ellimination in reverse for a shareholder...Just post anything related and see if the post gets removed? You then get to know, "what's hot" and "what's not", no?

Is Mike on the pay-roll perhaps? I mean, he'd written me an E mail (I found, while cleaning out my 'in box' earlier on today - from some time back - when he was a 'declared' shareholder), that included his advising me of the following:

"......Ross, recall I spoke to Hills back in 05 I believe and asked him if it was possible an investor (Xxxxman) could possibly know what earnings would be like and he told me point blank the Australia issue was a distraction.

I took that to mean the Aussie shares. I was only wondering if that clown Xxxxman had an inside ear to the founders. The subject did make him pause a moment." 

Do CEO's of companies actually speak to "no-bodies" (such as Mike is?),  and on a subject as sensitive as that, I wonder? It made the hair stand up on the back of my neck, in reading that at the time.

I was certainly more attentive to what he posted to stock boards after that.

And his "partner in crime" (and, as was mentioned by Mike above, when he "spoke to Hills back in 05"), isn't exactly a 'fan' of former CEO Dave Hills at any rate ...So, it was obviously 'mutual' ?

[ I had rang Mike from here in Brisbane Australia (after this) and caught him three part's full, with bourbon. He told me, that was what he was drinking. It was later in the night (for Him), at that time.

Mike was freely "spilling his guts" (to me) about this former CEO Dave Hill until such times as I had clearly heard his Wife (CeeCee) tell him, that hadn't he said enough already & that he should 'button-up' don't he think? (Or, words similar). I was absolutely dumb-founded and made sure that I kept Mikey at a safe distance from that point on.]

Re: i mean really


Yes....."LOOk is doomed and was always doomed when Hills took over - You might recall i said from day 1 he was an idiot and was sacked from his previous job"

I mean ...In retrospect, Mikey was probably simply "fishing" to see if I knew what "they" had already known, is my reckoning .....I mean, this "brazen fool" (who is suddenly, now Mikey's "buddy") is stupid enough to post the following:

3.  Re: at least one person wakes up 
... a FAILED model and indeed years ago when Thorney had the  town  hall  meeting for retail shareholders which i organised Evan said then the...
Business & Finance > Investments > Stocks (A to Z) > Stocks L  >  LookSmart, Ltd.
  smugglereturn   17-Nov-09 03:01 pm


hard to lie about what is before you????

LOWER CPC and now down to just 5 CPC!!!!!!!

HIGHER TAC now almost 70%

lets just look at these two metrics and what they mean

it means you have to sell more and more to get less and less

.................and i pointed out many many times it is a FAILED model and indeed years ago when Thorney had the town hall meeting for retail shareholders which i organised Evan said then the model they had could not be sustained and had to change.

then they were giving away around 60% in TAC

and then LOOK was getting well in excess of 5 CENTS PER CLICK!!!!!!

now look at other LOSING IAC

where is there anything good to say?????

they are burning cash and losing clients and getting less money for clicks and giving more to partners

oh yeah that model works


Evan Thorney said WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I mean, he was STILL (at that stage), the President of the Co, no?

And this very same basher "buddy" of Mike (who had himself said he spoke to Hills back in 05) in smugglereturn, boasted to all that he had SOLD all his holdings in Looksmart and, that was prior to that meeting had even became public knowledge? A retail shareholders Town Hall meeting "which i organised"

Now I don't know what the "statute of limitations" are in the US (in this regard), but any smart lawyer out there that may care to contact me and could let me know, I'm sure. i'd be most grateful. Thanks.


ps; My current (two) posts after finding my own E mail being accepted. (The 'kids' again did the membership application and have retained the alias.)  :)

"I'm all-right Jack"? (1)

Mikey had asked the question over on SeekingAlpha and it was answered as follows:

Why do I post on Yahoo (as a female) is answered in what is a further revelation type InstaBlog post (that I'm sure you won't be wanting to read) that awaits just ONE more "removal" of a post (from Yahoo), Mikey.

And ad verbatim it goes, as follows:

"My previous post was made in the best of 'faith' in my wishing of a [Happy Birthday Yahoo! - Here's a Tip to help Ms. Bartz celebrate]. ..but I've got a "sore" head now and it's clearly not from my 'over-celebrating'.

Posts are being removed from the Yahoo LOOK board on a regular basis.

My son and his partner had opened an account on Yahoo Finance and asked me to post my "thoughts" on their behalf.

"She" had put her own details on the membership form. I can live with that.

And after-all I (myself) had been barred access under my own steam, as I had often protested of many times on my blog, here.

CENSORSHIP is a nasty piece of fascism that surely must be 'fought' (tooth and nail), under any circumstances."

You have a great day, Mikey.


There will be a "follow-up" on SeekingAlpha, as promised.

I note that all my posts were deleted and (in fact) I caught them in the very moment this was happening. FWIW, it was approx. 5.00pm Brisbane time, here in Australia.

It is clear that posted research on facebook, Omniture and a few other Co's had hit a "raw" nerve. Why else would they be removed?

Continued in Part 2

Re: "I'm all-right Jack"? (2)

Continued from Part (1)

Again (FWIW) here is some Omniture information from my deleted posts on Investor Village, September, 2007....

Looksmart (as is MIVA) are among those listed, from within Omniture's "showcase" of partner sites. I'd suggest that it's to do with Genesis (an optimization software) that they say 'reduces the complexity of measuring online marketing campaigns and increases results by providing one standard view across all marketing initiatives'.

And when combined with MIVA Media's proprietary bid-for-position technology, it all makes sense. MIVA's technology ' allows advertisers to set the amount they pay for each keyword they advertise against.

Advertisers can view the current competing bid prices on keywords and change bid pricing at any time'.

So now Google gets to decide as to whether it wants to "play" in someone else's sandpit... Under completely different "terms and conditions" that are set by Publishers and Advertisers themselves.

Anyone get the impression that Google is slowly being "reeled in" by it's own Industry? And that (as predicted by myself some few years back) the business of SEO (in itself) will eventually become the way of the "blacksmith" with only those "elite" or, well established services surviving?

Yes, just "thoughts" like all my posts are.

MIVA (incidentally) has since been acquired by a "favorite" Ad Network AdCenter partner of Looksmart, in AdKnowledge.

But it's so clear that shareholders are to be TOLD "nothing" and any attempt to suggest likely partnerships or, connections will continue to be "gagged".

I am some-what disappointed in the 'blase' consideration (or, lack of) of other shareholders here, who (it's clear), couldn't give a sturf' one way or, the other as to whether CENSORSHIP of my posts is a good thing or, bad.

The fear of being "next", I guess?

IF speculative content wasn't "case sensitive" why in the world would posts be deleted, I ask? But it would seem that not too many are clever enough to figure that out.

Oh yes, we are all so brave in the face of adversity. So long as it doesn't directly concern us as individuals. "I'm all-right Jack"?

Disclosure: Long LOOK and happy to be so.