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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hank who wrote (8193)	7/31/2001 5:41:29 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

The irony of AREM is that they have turned a legitimate profit for several quarters but they act like the worst a shady characters in a BB stock. Easily wins the Most Perverse Stock of the Year award in my book. Currently a play only for those who like strolling through minefields whistling Dixie and watching the clouds roll by overhead. And about ten thousand crazed playground morons who like to scream at each other on Internet chat boards and feel like big shots. But that's a sad and inevitable part of the human condition......

To: Hank who wrote (8193)	7/31/2001 8:09:14 PM
From: BinkY2K	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

Hank, why don't good companies sue? I truly can not understand this logic. I know many companies keep hearing from investors whenever the price drops. Investors demand NEWS and an early release of good earnings and so on. They want lots of details put out in public, not buried deep in formal filings later. They do demand that a company "fight" in many ways. Plus, some companies have insiders who periodically sell shares and they often can only sell during narrow windows. So, they are often motivated by short-term considerations even if they are a legitimate company and will be doing fine on earnings. They can litigate if people cheat them, don't follow through on contracts, say nasty things or short without borrowing shares first. Maybe I am a fighter but I would use anything legitimate to get whoever attacked me and I would win most of the time. I have never run a company, but in my life that is what I often do. People who know me consider me fairly gentle but know I am deadly if they start up. I play to win or won't play. So, explain to me why this weird logic. When a company does not respond to the lies and insinuations of people like Manuel Asensio, you can assume it is true what he says. If they respond, and even file a lawsuit, you say it is true what he says. Well, my attitude to your kind of logic is I might as well punish the other guy and get even since you leave me no situation where I can win. If I must lose, then I will make you lose twice as much. Works for me and demolishes my opponents. Have I mentioned that anyone whom opposes REFR is my losing opponent? REFr has chosen to ignore Asensio and work on its business plan. Have I heard anyone here see that as positive? No way. People do not credit that at all. Of course, it can take months or years for the results that discredit Asensio. Perhaps when they are earning $10/share or more he may admit he was wrong, but I am not counting on it. In the case of AREM, it chose to fight back. The mere act makes them neither right nor wrong. The details are what makes them right or wrong. If the shorts have not shorted without borrowing, this latest tactic should not hurt them a bit. All certificates would have a valid pedigree since all shares are borrowed properly, and new certificates would be granted. It may be a bit of paperwork, but no big deal. So, I ask, why is the street fighting this? I am flipping the argument at you. A valid short who believes and follows the rules should IGNORE what the company is trying to do and get on with their business. My guess is both sides are crooked. AREM probably is hiding a few things, but not enough to be valued at zero. The shorts include many who followed the overall rules and some that cheated, like shorting from a Canadian account but naked. This can propagate to having buyers all over the place with potentially invalid shares. It can be a royal mess and it is possible that some of the original sellers can not be found or made accountable and some brokerages, or the entire NASD, may have to swallow some losses. So, which side is protesting too much? Does protest alone make you presumed guilty? I will agree with you on reality. Chances are shorts do not try to pick good companies to attack, or to say nasty things about. So, 90% of the time, they go after companies that likely are, at least partially, guilty. But my experience is that the shorts overdo it and throw in additional accusations, often baseless. So they may end up spreading 10 accusations against a company and 3 are serious, 3 are trivial and not a big deal and 4 are outright lies. Should the company not even defend against the latter?