To: marcos who wrote (8 ) 12/2/2003 11:11:51 AM From: peter michaelson Respond to of 74 hi marcos: You made many points in your brief post, and I'll try to respond to some of them for what it's worth. First, thanks for what I consider to be a grand compliment (level-headed way of steering extremists back towards relevance tho i have learned that some consider that characteristic simple wimpiness.Naked short selling is fraudulent, it is the sale of something that doesn't exist, and any justice system worthy of the name would have long ago made it a felony under criminal law Perhaps every major country in the world is wrong, but I don't believe there's a single one in which naked short selling is a crime. From my reading, many countries allow it to go on unregulated as the negative consequences have not warranted regulatory action. Thank you for your unbiased observations (those with which I agree, of course):most of what you hear about it comes from extremely dubious sources The whole DTC could maybe be improved by jacking up the hood ornament and sliding all new parts under ... i don't know that much about it, but there seem endless problems and a rather total lack of transparency often the printers/promoters are the principal short-sellers of this sort of paper, since they can manufacture and vend it at will Putting up shortseller.org website forced me to do more research about short-selling. Market experts seem to agree that it is very essential indeed. As I view the penny markets with new eyes, I come to feel that the problem in those markets is the lack of short-selling to counteract the BS. There needs to be a counteracting financial incentive to biew these stocks with a critical eye, to balance the overwhleming incentive to view them with a high apple pie in the sky eye. Let's make penny markets efficient by enabling short-selling in a transparent, legitimate way. I think we agree there. Thanks for posting, Peter