This is not a personal attack, and I apologize to the thread for extending this fairly ridiculous semantic quibble.
But Dale, your credibility as an investor, already somewhat strained as you know, is further strained when you make statements like the following:
No QS, I don't know that, but I do know that this thread has no credibility with me.
No. There is a very simple definition of a short position that is not open to debate. Going short is not simply making a bet that the value of something will decline. It is selling something you don't own (usually but not always via borrowing it) at a price that you believe is higher than the price at which you can buy it back later.
QS, try to follow along. If a guest is on CNBC talking down SUNW and the host asked him: "just so are viewers are aware...are you short SUNW?", if the CNBC guest replies NO. The host does not then, have to follow up with "what about PUTS, do you own PUTS against SUNW?" That is redundant. If the guest says he is not short SUNW, then he is not short and does not own PUTS against SUNW either. It is that simple. If it is later revealed the guest had bought a boatload of PUTS against SUNW, while talking SUNW down and denying to the host he was short, he is in deep do do.
|
