There is a very big difference between giving a view on Investing and giving a view which does not allow criticism. To me investing on SA is a process by which investable ideas are bandied about without rancor, pro and con. Articles Galore to choose from, Ideas Galore to ponder and discuss.
On the Other hand, There is the Article writer who cannot stop promoting an Idea. He starts disguising it in different formats but ends up with the same conclusion. So that, in essence Nothing New is seen.
I tend to ignore these but hoping that something has changed, I revisit. I did revisit and something Has changed. Michael Fitz (MF) is Now calling for the "replacing" of those in Government who have differing Energy Policy views. I do not know how he intends to accomplish this but he Is Inciting his followers to act without giving specifics. Waiting to vote in a New Administration doesn't seem to be an option, since his View Must Be Started NOW.
I consider this to be an Incitement for violence which has not appeared in any other Article I have ever read on SA. The Oklahoma Bombing is an example of how views might be expressed if the wrong people are given an incentive.
In my opinion, He Has crossed the Jagged Edge.
I am posting this because I want to read other opinions. I am not asking for opinions on the Pro/Cons of NGVs, which are useful but not a Panacea.
What I want to know is How Far can any writer be allowed to propagate views which could lead to violence?