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: semperfijarhead who wrote (77316)	6/2/2002 1:39:46 AM
From: dacoola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

As best as I recall Ed blundered and announced that the company had halted trading of it's own stock pending some stupendous announcement. Truth was that the SEC (or some other entity) had halted it pending an investigation. Check some posts following mine and you will find many others that flamed him. His post was totally in error and distributed over a few threads. Because of his suspension I assume that Ed couldn't come back and admit he was in error.

To: semperfijarhead who wrote (77316)	6/2/2002 2:10:08 AM
From: dacoola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Just to clarify..... Message 17104714

To: semperfijarhead who wrote (77316)	6/2/2002 2:20:47 AM
From: Edscharp	Respond to of 122087

semperfi, Unfortunately, I have no copy of my original post. I can state with near certainty that I made no direct accusations towards any single person or persons. I think what incited the 'overreaction' of some of Anthony's regulars was that I suggested the possibility of a short squeeze on the stock. My reasoning was that EGBT had just abruptly stopped trading during the height of the EGBT 'bashing' and that possibly some short-traders might themselves have been trapped with significant short positions in the stock. I'm pretty certain that I said something like, "if (a big if) the SEC's release in 10 days is not that bad that short-traders might be forced to cover against good news when trading resumes." Again, I would like to emphasize that my post was highly speculative in nature and that I had posted it with the appropriate caveats. I remember being fascinated by the reactions I got to such a speculative post. We could settle this easily if Jeff would reinstate the post.