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 : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edscharp who wrote (10087)	6/28/2002 10:21:01 AM
From: Dante Sinferno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Fine , then send him an e-mail and tell him what you think about his ludicrous assertions m.asensio@worldnet.att.net Be sure to let us know how it works out

To: Edscharp who wrote (10087)	6/28/2002 2:47:09 PM
From: mmmary	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 19428

Ed, read his statement again 1. If a company responds to shorters, it's a red flag. The main thing you're missing here is that a shorter has done a report on the stock. Shorters only do reports on bad stocks. They don't attack good stocks as they (1) could be sued for libel if they lie as they are not anonymous (2) it's easier to short loser companies and there are a ton out there to choose from so why target a winning company(3) shorting dishonest super scammy companies would produce the tons more profits than a short and distort scheme on an honest company which will probably do absolutely nothing. If a company targeted by a shorter responds to the shorter, they are guilty because the shorter targeted them in the first place. They are doubly guilty to respond to the shorter as they would have to lie to state that the shorter is wrong or lying. Shorters don't lie as they could be sued easily and they'd lose their credibility. A wise company would not respond. Only an egocentric ceo who's scammed investors for a long time would have the nerve to respond and call the shorter a liar when the ceo's the liar. It's called projection. I believe this is a semantics issue. It's how you read and interpret the sentence. It's not just someone responding to a negative comment that makes them suspect. It's much more.