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: sommovigo who wrote (58531)	8/11/2000 2:43:52 PM
From: Druss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Sommovigo--<<It really seems to me like your knight in shining armor is not as shining as you thought (or hoped) he was.>> I haven't got any idols on SI or the net for that matter. Just some friends, and in honesty neither Auric or I would call each other friends. I respect his opinion and his market savvy. I also respect someone who hunts and bust frauds. That's why I monitor this thread. My apologies but you sound just like the Yahoo posters. Organized gangs of shorts coming around to short their wonderful company to bankruptcy. First they short this diamond in the rough, then 'bash' it and then drive it out of business. It doesn't work that way. Why short quality? Trash is the target of a short and fraudulent bashing down stocks just isn't happening. Check the SEC busts, not one organized short driving down a company fraudulently yet. If you are going to commit a felony and manipulate a stock price it is logical to go for a pump and dump. You can make multiples of your investment. One last point, if you discover a company is a fraud it is not by any means always illegal to short it. Any number of instances it is perfectly legal to short away. Some Australian mining engineers checked the property BRE-X used for their gold claims and fraud before BRE-X made their claims. If one of them said "No way that property has gold" shorted it and posted his knowledge on the net. It is perfectly legal. Druss

To: sommovigo who wrote (58531)	8/11/2000 2:45:53 PM
From: knows_picker	Respond to of 122087

sommovingo, theres a turd in that bag yer holding. and its marked NO RETURNS hope you didnt pay too much for it

To: sommovigo who wrote (58531)	8/11/2000 2:54:58 PM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 122087

Sounds more like trying to profit from one's hard work in exposing scams by way of the previously unrevealed truth

To: sommovigo who wrote (58531)	8/11/2000 6:28:11 PM
From: peter_moreno	Respond to of 122087

My question, therefore, remains - if Auric is using short-selling as a tactic to "decimate some POS" stock, is that considered to be an act of attempted price manipulation vis-a-vis the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 9? Frankly, I do not care one tittle whether Mr Pink, Elgindy, or Auric have "exposed" anything - short-selling is ONE activity, belonging to an investment strategy. Exposing fraud is ANOTHER acitivity - when you relate the two, when you use short-selling as a means to "decimate some POS" company that you are in the throes of "exposing" - that SEEMS to be a deliberate attempt to manipulate the price of an issue for TACTICAL PURPOSES. Consider "analysts" and other people who issue buy recommendations for a $9 turd and give a price target of $80. Do you consider this to be wrong and where does it differ from what you seem to find fault with Auric? I think there is little and many only find problems if they are holding the opposite position. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to state same. Facts posted that can be supported .... do you have a problem with that? Seems you may have been on the wrong side of an Auric trade or two and posting with your bank balance in mind. Peter