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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GuitarMan who wrote (231579)	3/27/2003 1:02:45 PM
From: Bid Buster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

LOL..Funny ass story but sure impressive gains.

To: GuitarMan who wrote (231579)	3/27/2003 1:08:28 PM
From: John	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

The scary aspects of the article were: >> made a flurry of 126 high-risk trades and came out the winner every time, it raised the eyebrows of Wall Street watchdogs << What "Wall Street watchdogs?" Lemme guess... A computer program flags YOU when you have X number of consecutive successful trades and then they arrest YOU when you have X number of additional successful trades? What kind of free market system does that? Oh, I forgot. We're not really in a "free market" system. >> "If a company's stock rose due to a merger or technological breakthrough that was supposed to be secret, Mr. Carlssin somehow knew about it in advance," says the SEC source close to the hush-hush, ongoing investigation.<< What? I have read about "red" or "odd" coming up over a hundred times in a row in Vegas Roulette. It may be mathematically improbable but it is not impossible. >> "But the fact is, with an initial investment of only $800, in two weeks' time he had a portfolio valued at over $350 million. Every trade he made capitalized on unexpected business developments, which simply can't be pure luck. << Sure it can be. This is utter nonsense. >> "The only way he could pull it off is with illegal inside information. << Bullshit. How in Christ's name did he have "inside info" on 126 trades? This is nonsense. >> He's going to sit in a jail cell on Rikers Island until he agrees to give up his sources." << Great. They have absolutely nothing by anecdotal evidence, and the guy is going to sit in a jail cell until he rots or confesses? And "WE'RE" the fcking GOOD GUYS??? WTF? And why all of this hoopla? Why not just invent evidence and rob the guy of his money like they plan to do anyway? Sickening and terrifying. Why don't they just post a law that says you can make X without getting into trouble but if you make a penny more you're going to jail unless you're somebody special. Fck that. John