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: N. Dixon who wrote (8792)	2/10/2003 1:48:56 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

<< do not think you have covered>> I have partially covered and will continue to do so. I will be more than happy to provide trade confirmations from 2 brokers. <<I do think it's criminal to collude on taking a stock down>> So do I. However, since I have never "taken a stock down", I don't see your point. Short-selling is simply the inverse of going long. If the company succeeds, short-sellers lose money. Simple as that. <<soliciting negative articles>> Huh?? <<calling company's customers and telling them it's a fraud>> Never did that. Care to back up your claims? <<I don't believe you are an "innocent" individual investor>> I offered to provide indisputable evidence. Why do you refuse to see it? <<You said you put the stock in front of hedge funds>> Correct. However, not the funds you are obsessed with. furthermore, I wasn't compensated for the idea...nor do I have any business or employer/employee relationship with said funds. <<You obsessively post misinformation in spite of evidence to the contrary.>> My information is 100% accurate, and the stock prioce reflects that. As far as "obsessive" is concerned....I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind who the obsessed one is Dixon.