Ed:
Thanks for your message. But, after reading the tone of it, I'd like to assure you that I only have interest in the information and facts of FONX. And certainly not confrontation.
To clarify:
<<If we're smart, we don't kick rocks because we know they're hard. If we don't like the volatility of speculative issues, such as FONX, there are mutual funds to smooth the path for those who don't like roller coasters or bumps.>>
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. I happen to be short this stock.
<<If you wish to shelter others...>>
Again, I don't know where you might be getting this impression.
<<This is my point, and the point that FONX MMs (IMHO) are doing exactly what Chelekis says in "Variations on Running a Shaker." And John, so what? Like it? Great. Since you don't, so what?>>>
And your comment yesterday...
<<If it's not obvious from yesterday, today has made it even clearer, the MMs are flushing sell stops.>>>
As I said I am willing to learn any new information and facts. Please supply the facts that back up your allegation of the MMs "obviously" flushing out sell stops. Did that happen again in today's 400K share day as well? Can you tell me at what price on the books the stops exist in an inconsequential manner so that these MMs will cease the flushing out? Is it at $5 or $4 1/2 or $4, etc?
<<I think that your implied perspective on the importance of SI to the larger world of the markets might be a bit exaggerated.>>
I'm sorry that you got that implication. No exaggeration intended. SI apparently, however, is perceived as a very important forum by the managements of some companies.
<<Since you seem to be a bit stereotypical on your dd about Chelekis, perhaps you should click on my bio and history of posts on SI and make up your own mind as to my motives on SI...I'll stand on the record of my posts on SI anyday.>>
<<George Chelekis was/is, from my understanding of news releases relating to his trading practices, a crook.>>>
If you'd like to classify my opinions in this regard as "stereotypical", then so be it. We are obviously both such, in this case. |
