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: Bear Down who wrote (78585)	6/27/2002 2:03:29 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

Now, you see, Bear Down, when you write like that ... "Can you say LOSER ?????" ... you especially gotta agree that language like that is deep within the tradition of the shorter who elicits a long to comment similarly. The add-on essentially takes out anyone who might have entertained any serious notion of having a dialogue worthy of consideration. When you set the deck to assure a lack of consideration the very great chances are you'll get same. Behold the artful tactic of one who is group-short. Losers. Hmmm. Have many of you yet considered the fact you write similarly, perhaps think and behave the same? Probably not. An erstwhile thought to that perhaps. Something Group-Shorted. Is there anyone out there who doesn't agree that at the time a stock becomes group shorted that most meaningful dialogue gets shorted also? That it, in effect, disappears? I mean whatever happened to an introductory arrival to a thread whereby a true cause for dialogue really mattered? Instead the group short thing is to initiate the set-up, and further the pile-on effect. Really, who wants that? If there's true cause to go short why not simply show up on a short target thread and voice contrary opinions in the sole purpose and want for discovery of ones contrary to your own, and ones ideally rooted from merit? Unfortunately, that too easy gets canceled out in the tableset process. Frankly, Bear Down, I think it's a poor strategy to get the longs to become short by calling 'em "loser[s}." But that's what happens when meaningful dialogue isn't integral to the tactic. Taking over and destroying the potential for meaningful dialogue is indeed the tactic. And this gets spun from a who cares, merry prankster (not the real ones!) weave that often so closely woven fabric of deceit. It's not the dialogue that counts; it's the takeover! Pretty much, I'd bet what it minimally takes to get something going is for Group Shortsters is one lead shortscout to visit a thread, with a variant dose of information (float size, being prime on the list), and coming back with a report for the horde laying in wait, anxious for the scout to nudge the leader into making the call. So some get called some get told "losers" while others get told "good call." Oh, well. I've never much been impressed with group short calls, at least the ones made where the soldiers are already armed and mounted. And if there's inside information leading the horde? Well, that's particularly troubling. But this is my opinion. Yours? Anyones? Finally, I don't know what Ga Bard did relative to a long or short world of trading. Nonetheless, he could very well be a fine person with merry friends and someone who shares good ideas and good thoughts and has a value for others and perhaps even entertains a sympathy for that which is not understood. Bear Down, I sincerely think you lose when you call people "losers." Especially since winners, more than not, come from a loss place where winners frequently were. Ya never know, you know!?! Unless, of course, the deck is stacked.