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 : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (95316)	9/11/2006 5:02:15 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I don't bother reading the blog entries of posters there. I like O'Brien's notes though, particularly the ones that deal with Aguirre's testimony and the litigation that the hedge funds have brought against the prime brokers, both of which are bringing news of the NSScamming to the public. I tend to look for substance rather than little nit picks that the hedgie and MM defenders like to focus on. I don't follow Global Links and don't want to be in a position to either defend it or bash it. I'll leave that up to you and others here. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, and, again I don't follow Global, but it seems that Patch is saying one thing and there is a difference of opinion. My point is posting here was that this did not make him a liar. I don't know him. I think it was unfair to call him a liar or to ascribe to O'Brien that he is calling Patch a liar, when, at most, there seems to be a different interpretation of the data and a difference in what it means, basically opinions vary. I think I was being fair. I didn't think it was fair to call Floyd a criminal. Again, I may be reading your post wrong but I don't see that Patch has claimed your #2 statement. I may be wrong on that but I don't see it.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (95316)	9/11/2006 5:26:20 PM
From: Patchie	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 122087

Hey Kev... I think I already posted that over there as I did in my STOCKGATE Article. People are mincing words but the outcome is the same. 1. The trading in Global Links was illegal. 27 Million FTD's entered the market in a single day. Many put an FTD and naked short together. Fact is, a long fail executed off shares that do not exist can be interpreted as a short if you like. I think the SEC has identified that the trade should be marked short if you are not in possession to settle. 2. The only error in the Investrend article was that of certificates. Gayle Essery's comment was taking a editorial liberty. To think that he had them literally in the sock drawer is foolish. What he did have was a confirmed trade execution and the next day, with high volume trading, he also had those same shares in his account again and again and again. Now, since he placed the order through a registered broker, and only said to purchsase $5000.00 worth of the stock (not specifying quantity) how exactly is he the manipulator as EVERYONE here claims. Do you really think the total market cap value was $5000.00? If you want to play your little test, I would challenge you to state your comments a little more truthfully instead of looking for the retort. How about, "Bob, Patch claims the FTD's in Global Links were not naked shorts but clerical errors initiated after a failed reverse merger you keep claiming these are naked shorts. Why the difference?" Try that Kev and see where it gets you. I am still waiting for a legitimate response from this board full of quacks about the sudden ramp in FTD's based on that single day but haven't seen one yet. All I hear is that look at their last 3 years crap. Funny I always thought DTCC data was reflective of real time and not historical past. And since the FTD's did NOT exist on February 1 but showed up on the settlement day for February 1 trading it is 100% clear the FTD's were due to that days events. Does that logic escape anybody? Floyd?