But I will not bother to refute the points you made in this message.
What a surprise.
You have behaved properly, but your friends have exhibited behavior best observed in zoological institutions and as a result, I urge them to take serious, long-term short positions in this stock.
They are inherently cowardly, preying upon the nervous small investors who seek advice and guidance from boards such as this. They attack what they cannot understand, claiming that the company is worthless, yet they cover their short positions at a price which this stock has achieved only in the past five days. If the stock is truly worthless as they claim, why cover at all?
1. In my eyes it is equally cowardly of you to claim that my arguments are flawed but then not have the sac to back that statement up. Sorry, I don't want to go through 10k messages here and 10 billion messages on RB where it's nothing but a bunch of backslapping and handholding by clueless investors, looking for some needle in a haystack post that's going to awaken me to how this company is worth anywhere close to where it's at today or has any real breakthrough technology.
2. Who says everyone covered? Of course it is the smart play to cover into a downdraft like this, just as it would have been the smart play to sell into the runup when you have liqudity if you are long, but some prefer to stay short and get even shorter on any further runs. Of course they should get that chance since one would expect some more nice fluffy PR, and "we're going to Nasdaq, woohoo" board fodder, to get the price moving north again. I doubt anyone will bother to mention the many BB stocks that get smooshed when they hit the NAZ and become an easier short. We wouldn't want to scare the small investor with the truth.
If there's something i've said that you find to be untrue, then let's discuss it, but all i've seen so far is a bunch of longs that allude to this and hint at that but can't back any of it up when pressed.
CMB |
