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 : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pluvia who wrote (2376)	1/23/2005 3:53:02 PM
From: hedgefundman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

yep - glad 2c you agree IT'S THE SMELL TEST BABEEEEE but as far as extorted company being happy "jump at chance to get a block of stock" outta their hands, tha's a funny one, lesseee Buddy X steals a diamond from the jeweler. Ole pluvia being a nice guy buys it for $5.00 even tho he seen Buddy X running from the jeweler. "hmmmm, maybe he's just a jogging." Turns out the diamond is CUBIC ZIRCONIUM. So did ole pluvia receive stolen goods? Can he use the ole "i din't see no crim and no crime defense?" And he thought he was buyin a diamond for his signifeecant udder. BETTER YET - new Pluvia version. Buddy X goes back to jeweler and says, "cubic zirconium? Imma coming back every week to loosen up yo' inventory. Youse better give me real diamond for $500, no questions assked, or else I visit you each week." Jeweler happy to get rid of that diamond even though it worth way more. happy to see Buddy X leave him alone. everyone happy, even Pluvia who buys the diamond for $750 for his significant udder and even though he knows it's worth $5000.

To: Pluvia who wrote (2376)	1/23/2005 4:28:54 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

most otc companies would jump at the chance to get a block of stock off without harming their stock price (ie to shorts who are just covering their position). How could AP BUYING 100,000 shares to cover his short position HURT the stock price? Que? Seems to me AP wanted a block of 100,000 shares so he wouldn't have to buy into a thinly traded stock and see the price rocket when he tried to cover, also because as he earlier announced he was short anyone seeing that kind of price activity would have known AP was covering and likely his 300 members would have all covered and there you go rocketing price now why would any OTC CEO want to prevent that? I'd think that would be a pretty good day for them. The insider trading is on non-public info, agreed. I agree if info was publicly available then there's a problem there saying it's "inside." On the other hand, reports say AP is also alleged to have traded on FBI investigations, and that kind of info is not exactly public knowledge. We've also heard that AP used FBI investigations as leverage to extort free or discounted shares from OTC companies. I don't see what "reasonable excuse" is available to explain that - especially because AP never told anyone here, the public he claimed he was trying to help, remember ---------------->I CAN'T LIE , etc., that he was so close to his targets. For example, what happened to his members when he covered 100k short through extorted shares? He warn them? If not, there's another problem, because he accepted $2.5 mill from his members who he assured knew his positions "consistent with what [he] posts at SI." Seems he never posted his "hard bargaining" with NSOL, for example. Anyone else get discounted shares? It's all the same story in the end, some people play by the rules; some think they don't apply to them; all those of us who actually follow the law, think it means something, are just naive "dipshits," suckers to be targeted and exploited by the sainted few who are immune from the law and all consequences like AP, Berber et al. Immunity delusions turning into cold legal reality these days it seems.