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 (72337)	7/3/2001 7:32:53 AM
From: CaptainSEC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

This is not about any reward, its about the fact that you issued a challenge to find un-truthful statements within the report on SLPH. I like a challenge! You actually issued 2 challenges, by my reading of your original post; 1 to find 'one untruthfull statement in the SLPH report, PART 1', and a second one to 'find one statement that I knowingly presented it to be false'. There are 3 errors of the first type and 1 of the second type within the 1st couple of paragraphs. I don't agree that share counts, market cap and closing print prices are 'irrelevant and material discrepencies', and adding conditions to the challenge after the fact to make your errors excusable...that seems... I also don't agree that citing a source that you've used for 7 years is an excuse. By your reasoning, it would follow that Dodi Handy's inaccurate compensation figures in the original Continental Capital disclaimer for GENI is OK too, and that the often mis-quoted pre/post-split GENI short position numbers are justifiable because they came from an online source that has been used by someone for years (Yahoo) I haven't questioned the accuracy of the SLPH report, nor the quality of it. Nor do I see what speculation about the opinion of a jury has to do with anything. (although I'm imagining trying to explain to a jury 'ummm...i used Bloomberg's numbers, if there is a mistake its not my fault') What I do see is a challenge issued with two specific goals; a) find an untruthful statement b) find an intentional mis-statement. By the way, your report header says NASDAQ:SLPH. Any fool knows you meant OTC:SLPH. Bloomberg again? Nitpicking? Yes. Accurate? You tell me. Then again, if OTC company XXXX issued PR saying that they are NASDAQ:XXXX, implying that they have passed NASDAQ standards for listing on the main exchange when they are actually an OTC Bulletin Board company, the SHOO would be on the other foot, wouldn't it? Frankly, I don't have either the time or the inclination to pursue this any further. Id rather spend my time picking nits in other SEC filings. Those of you who think that share count and market cap errors are OK, and that somehow I'm the bad guy here...well, those of us who do read every line and question every statement sleep a lot better with our short positions. Good trading to all!