Aren't we're going a bit overboard here?
Whether someone is a 'loser' can't be determined from one or two positions. Take shareholdersunite.com recommendations, one could argue SHU is a loser if you take the two dogs (OCZ down 74.5% and STP(!) down 42%). But both revealed accounting "issues" after the buy recommendations which, accountants have assured me, would have been very difficult even for them to spot.
Alternatively, one could argue SHU is brilliant on the basis of the two best performing ones (SPWR up nearly 500% in less than a year and CTRP up more than 150%).
You would be wrong on both assessments.
And whether Bonk ignores all true facts, dunno about that. For sure he's biased, but we're all biased. We ALL work with mental models of reality and tend to fill in the gaps with things that confirm, rather than contradict that mental map, and there are myriad other ways in which your own mind plays tricks on you. If you don't believe me read any treatise on behavioural finance. We're even often deeply mistaken about our own desires, read the excellent "Stumbling on Happiness" from Daniel Gilbert.
The trick for investors is to be aware of the biases in one's own mental models. Hyperventilating in the face of critics, whatever their motives or shortcomings, isn't very useful, in fact quite the contrary. Different opinions can serve a useful purpose in revealing the shortcomings in one's own assumptions and models.
I've never been scared by contradictory opinons, I engage with them, perhaps there is something I can learn. I also do take them on if I see weaknesses in them, or point out they lack substantiation (as in Tilson's case).
Hyperventilating isn't productive, but that's just my 2c.