|
My, my, my. Such alarm over a fiesty Nanny. Except for one post by paul i do not recall any such furor when certain shorts were threatening peoples livelihoods. calling peoples employers, using sexual innuendo, bombarding longs with X-rated e-mails and threatening SEC action etc, etc. James, Momo Dog etc didnt seem to mind the antics of the likes of ivan and others on this thread who raised the specter of legal action against longs. You hypocrites sat on your hands all during that spiteful period and said nothing; now it is your "sane and sober" position that Nanny may ruin the thread by giving consideration to holding accountable those who knowingly post false information on the thread. Face it James; there are hundreds of threads on SI and on each of these threads you have people posting on both sides of the subject stock. However, on those threads you will almost NEVER see the likes of the posts routinely made by some of the shorts on this thread. Certain shorts have not only viciously attacked the subject company but have entered into gutter attacks on fellow posters. Ther is no doubt i my mind that that certain shorts on this thread would have celebrated gleefully had they been successful in running Neil off the thread or negatively affecting someones employment. I see nothing wrong with those people taking a little incoming heat from an unexpected source; in fact I see it as reaping what one has sown. What goes around comes around, Momo Dog , James, Hedge. It is to your credit that you did not engage in the above described behaviour, however, it is less to your credit that, unlike paul, you never spoke out to condemn those shorts who did. |
