Quite the opposite.
<This was a private company so consequently your statement above is illogical, irrational and non-sensical.>
you also wrote ...
<But you have to have a public market for a stock in order for it to be profitable and that just did not exist here.>
Both of your statements are wrong or as Ah would say, Your statements are illogical, irrational, non-sensical,disjointed and some other BS. <g>
Being private has nothing to do with it (zip point squat). Hype helps to sell pre IPO shares to the outside public. I can point out several posts were people said they either lost money in slikroad or they know people that did. Hype in a private company can also be intended to create powerful demand for the stock when the company does do the IPO. Silkroad just did not survive to get to the IPO stage.
<Gosh, I don't know what burr has gotten under your saddle, but it must be large.>
There is a good clue in one of the links of the post you responded to. I'll leave it at that for now.
<SEXI, BREX, RMIL, MTEI, and dozens of other equally infamous threads to recognize true swindling?>
Not really, when I suspect this I normally avoid the stock and pay no attention to the thread unless I decide to short the stock.
<I have, and well sir, SR ain't one of those.>
Maybe it was not one of the types you recognize. I have to doubt that you would recognize all types of scams. That is pretty hard to do. Somewhere on earth, a new scam is invented about as fast as you can read that it has happened.
<Even though SR is evidently dead, I am convinced there is something real here with the technology. By definition, innovations similar to that described on this thread are disruptive and highly polarizing.>
good point
<Having said all this and coming back to the issue of FAC and ahhaha, you have presented not one iota of proof, or even reasonable inference to accuse them of participating in less than honorable discussion. I suggest you go find some.>
I am not SEC. I can not subpoena private E-mails, phone records and bank accounts. BTW, there are plenty of corpses on boot hill who were convicted on circumstantial evidence only.
<I am philosophically opposed to moderated threads. I believe in free speech. Inflammatory speech should be countered by more speech>
I mostly think the same way.
<However, your right (to free speech) should be exercised prudently. Can you do it?>
Good question <g> On any censorship deal, it really depends on who is the censor doesn't it? Why ask me, my vote doesn't count. This is something like like it is not the vote that counts, it is who count the vote that counts.
<If this turns out to have been a scam from the git go, I will be really surprised ... But time will tell, won't it?>
I respect your point of view on all matters. Thank you for taking the time to express it.
<Perhaps you would care to state an opinion on Iridium: fraud? bad-timing? or mismanagement on a global scale?>
IMO, mismanagement on a global scale |
