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: CYBERKEN who wrote (1155)	2/27/2001 2:01:04 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 12465

I think the two sides you refer to are not as far apart as you think. The disparity is not so much about what he did per se, but about what he did in context with his age. As I was trying to point out, substitute "mob" for "Lebed" and I would think we'd have a pretty solid consensus that what occurred was a classic pump and dump which is clearly a violation of SEC law. The problem is once we consider his age we start making excuses: he just copied adults, he didn't know what he was doing was "wrong", he didn't have proper parental supervision, etc. Yes, those arguments should be considered, but only, IMO, when determining punishment not legality. And, as I tried to point out, the big bad SEC didn't nail a helpless kid (or his parents) to the wall, they let him off very easy. BTW, I did start a companion thread to this for related discussions but it never quite took off ( siliconinvestor.com. In retrospect I'm kind of glad it didn't because I think a discussion about a Lebed is healthy every so often especially when the people making comments here are among the most seasoned chat board posters on the net. Even more importantly, they aren't reacting to Lebed the guy from the NY Times article, they are reacting to Lebed the person who was a contemporary of theirs here on SI. That makes a big difference, IMO. - Jeff