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.

Non-Tech : SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc. (Bulls Board) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (1387)	12/17/2006 11:45:46 AM
From: bones142O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1521

As for professional pumpers, I am sure there are professional pumpers and I would define that as someone who is paid by a company to post, either directly or from a third person. In terms of disclaimer requirements, there seems to be some grey area as there are very few actual disclaimers posted. Perhaps those who are paid feel that the disclosure requirements only apply with respect to PR's and public releases of that kind. I don't know the answer to that. That's what I wanted to hear? Some BALANCE! IMO, every IR-firm could be defined as a paid-professional-pumper and they surely post on these threads. And I've yet to hear of any company hiring an IR-firm to inform investors of all the negative aspects of the company...lol...even dell, msft, etc. have negative aspects but they dont hire any IR-firm to inform investors. Agreed! There undoubtedly have been, and in all probability, are currently "paid"-bashers posting on these threads, especially in a high-volume, high-interest stock such as sljb. But there are likely BOTH, and in BALANCE, any reference to one MUST include a reference to the other. The "Anthony@Pacific" story is an interesting read that every trader/investor should read up on and this new sec-case against GRYPHON is also a must-read: sec.gov One might take the debate-side that naked-shorting is the problem, but I would counter that, IN FACT, it is the PIPES, S-8's, and/or any dilutions that are the problem and naked-shorting, being mostly a RE-action, would be diminished ENORMOUSLY without all the sleazy-dilutions. p.s. on the sljb header-box mis-info, if i owned the stock, i would make a concerted effort to get it corrected.