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: CaptainSEC who wrote (72407)	7/3/2001 10:36:43 PM
From: mmmary	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

I think he means intentional material fact That discrepency doesn't really affect the report as a whole though I most certainly don't speak for anyone else. I think he's looking for people to show that he's a liar. I once posted here that umcc had lost 99% of it's value from a peak of $15. A few people said it did not peak at $15 but $9. Others said it did. It depended upon which chart service you used, one that showed daily spikes or just open and close prices. This was four years ago also so some charts didn't go back that far with specific prices. I know for certain it did peak at $15 one day after a cnbc interview but could only prove it with one chart and some old posts. It still lost 99% of it's value as it went to .04 cents, either from $9 or $15, it didn't matter. Was I a liar, slanderer, committer of libel?