To: Janice Shell who wrote (3773 ) 5/3/2005 4:53:01 PM From: rrufff Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5425 Janice - As I've posted before, and despite what the shortie crew may think of me, I try to paste information irrespective of the perceived character of the writer. That particular article seemed to be put together or edited by Faulk but citing Coulson so whether or not Faulk is a "nutjob," would seem pretty immaterial to the issues discussed in the article. I enjoy the substance of your posts, and TS, even though I may disagree, and I also enjoy, as well, the opinions on the other side, from the perspective of learning and understanding these issues. I don't have time to investigate your bias although the PM's I get are legendary <gggg>, just as I don't really care about Faulk's issues. If he or you present a cogent argument, then let's discuss the merits and not try to hound someone. After all, it's the internet. I really don't see why there can be any opposition to getting all these issues into the open, such that there is a full revamp of our system, bringing it into the 21st cent. I agree with your comments on pinks and OTCbb. Personally, I think there should be full disclosure for all traded securities. It helps someone like me who spends most of my time researching before investing, doing my own DD, and not listening to touts, except to get sentiment. However, I would work hard to cut the costs. Sorbanes Oxley is killing a lot of good small companies and it needs some practical revisions. Auditors are raping their clients with CYA absurdist requests. More companies are going pink or private because of it. These are all tweaks which can be made. It doesn't have to be all or none. Create an environment where touts can't promote worthless companies, where managements can't sell overseas, where hedgies can't short with PIPE's, where manipulators and MM's don't abuse the naked short sale rules, and you would wind up with markets that are much more investor friendly for all of us.