Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (54679)	4/17/2000 1:02:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

This is my ongoing list of rules that must be complied with in order for a short seller to be given credit for a good call by message board longs: 1. A short seller may not post his call anywhere or speak about it in public. 2. The stock must fall in a rising market. Any profitable short in a declining market is discounted. 3. The stock must never recover, even years after a short sale is covered. 4. The security may not rise in price after the short sale call. If the stock rises, the short call is not a good call, even if the company subsequently goes bankrupt. A degree of success is discounted for every tick beneath the top which the sale is initiated. 5. A short who is sued by the company he has called is immediately and forever wrong about that short call, regardless of the subsequent fate of the company. After all, filing a lawsuit proves the call was 'bashing for profits sake'. 6. A short may never admit to having made a profit on a short sale. This is akin to rubbing it in, and shows that the short seller enjoys others losses. 7. A short call on a stock other than the high flyers such as YHOO, AMZN, JDSU, QCOM, etc is invalid. Those are the first seven. I think there should be more flapdoodle rules that longs have to discount profitable shorts as good calls. I will expand this list as other worthy twaddle is brought to my attention. Regards, Barb

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (54679)	4/17/2000 1:07:00 PM
From: learnstocks	Respond to of 122087

A@P, I agree with you about ARIAD. Bought and sold it at a slight loss but got out.

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (54679)	4/17/2000 1:31:00 PM
From: mike wood	Respond to of 122087

Hi Anthony,I know that this may be too much to ask.With some of the profits you have made shorting stocks the last week or so,could you buy a couple 100,000 shares of ENPT so the rest of us could make money also?:-)

To: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (54679)	4/17/2000 3:25:00 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

It's a pity you can't read since I've placed countless posts on the Ariad thread showing that, in fact, I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. So orally inducible, vector controlled gene expression, especially for diabetes, is pure 'crap'? Hmmm. I wonder if you have one iota of a clue what I'm talking about?! Describe to me, ole Tony boy, what Ariad's science is all about. I mean, if you found it to be 'crap' then you must have studied it quite thoroughly to arrive at such a thoughtful conclusion. And I suppose Gerald Crabtree of Stanford and Stuart Schreiber of Harvard, world renowned molecular biologists and the two scientists most responsible for Ariad's technology, are 'crap' as well. Fascinating. NOT. Sorry guy, your arrogance can't hide your ignorance no matter how hard you try. You got into something you had no idea about and now you're the kettle calling the pot black. You can keep dispensing the expletives all you want. You're already one of the more obnoxious posters on SI.