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: ravenseye who wrote (3488)	4/12/2005 2:43:55 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Interesting post. I think that kind of shows the real issue. It's not whether or not naked shorting exists, or whether paid touts/bashers exist, it's about what crims and manipulators can get away with doing at the expense of retail investors. Even better if they can pretend to be crusaders. And that goes for manipulators on both sides of the equation, long and short.

To: ravenseye who wrote (3488)	4/12/2005 3:03:49 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

But Ravey, a US CITIZEN COULD HAVE OPENED A ACCOUNT AT ONE TIME IN CANADA AND SHORTED (EVEN NAKED) US STOCKS. ELGINDY WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH NAKED SHORT SELLING AS YOU KNOW. THE LAWS DID CHANGE HOWEVER. PRIOR TO LAWS CHANGING NAKED SHORT SELLING IN CANADA WAS 100% LEGAL. ONCE AGAIN, ANY PERSON AT THE TIME COULD HAVE SHORTED A OTC STOCK OR ANY STOCK NAKED. THAT PERSON BTW WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW IF IT WAS A NAKED SHORT SELL SINCE THAT BURDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN UPON THE CANADIAN BROKERAGE WHICH WAS DOING THE ACTUAL NAKED SHORT . YOU SHOULD READ THE STOCKWATCH.COM STORIES ON PI WHICH CONFIRM WHAT I AM WRITING BTW.