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.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rjm2 who wrote (1128)	2/24/2001 9:25:43 PM
From: rjm2	Respond to of 12465

What is funny is I bought some FTEC on 1/2/01 at $1.03 and I didnt know the scam-boy used to be involved. Of course, I havent sold and havent posted $44 or $20 targets and would be happy as a pig in slop if it sees $3 this year. In the past I had positions in a number of stocks that were pumped & dumped. I profited from them. I didnt have any idea what was driving the stocks but I bought low in order to sell higher and so when my limit orders started filling, I placed more & sold more. Never enough in hindsight. But whomever was buying these stocks surely got hurt. Thats wrong...even if I was smart enough to take advantage of it.

To: rjm2 who wrote (1128)	2/24/2001 9:36:26 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 12465

No doubt the big stores on Wall Street aren't intimidated by those five lawyers across the table, so it doesn't offer a law enforcement return for the effort. But governments, even of free republics, have only one thing to offer in any environment: the coercive power of the state. Governments are not designed to offer innovations, or to build value, or to create novel solutions. They are, by nature, the essential monopoly of coercive force. That is, they bring to the game the preponderance of firepower, and thus, if properly directed and constrained by a diligent public, yield the optimal amount of civic order, and thus maximize liberty. So, essentially, we need to debate whether this situation, regardless of if it is perpetrated by an adolescent child or by a major Wall Street underwriter, is not one where the coercive power of government should simply retire, and leave the public the message: "Beware, your money does not come with instructions"...