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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: anniebonny who wrote (3268)	3/16/2008 2:07:44 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 5034

Anniebonny, I noticed you posted here. On other boards, you lie about my posts, you lie about me and you post out of context. Why don't you come over here and we can debate the merits of specific posts? Come on Anniebonny, we won't bite. Don't be afraid. Elsewhere you don't cite my posts in full context but merely make untrue statements and out of context insinations. I didn't defend AURC or claim it was anything other than a extremely speculative leap of faith and that I personally was playing the odds, nothing more, nothing less. In fact, I was kicked off as moderator when I refused to go along with the deletion of negative posts. I continued long, but, again, totally knowing the extremely high likelihood of failure and attempting to capture the gain if things turned out to be as portrayed by the company. I posted many of my trades, bought it as low as .02, expressed my opinion that it was extremely low odds, but possible high return. Does this make someone a stock tout? In fact, I recently bought some when it went sub-penny. I haven't posted about it until now because I just haven't followed up in detail with the claims both ways. I see the volume is relatively low and typical pinkie dilution is not apparent and I do believe that's the key in pink sheeters. It certainly looks like it's a scam, but without dilution and dumping of shares, there is an argument for speculative play. What's wrong with that? Jim Bishop does this often. I did go after you and claim that your style was to attack a stock because certain posters posted positively. Then you, in turn, post about posters because of the fact they posted about the stocks. With respect to the transfer agent, you claimed the company was a scam because it used a particular TA. That's evidence but not enough to prove anything. I didn't say it wasn't a scam. I just pointed out the weakness and amateur status of the argument. You made a big deal about CSHD. Many people took a look at it and ran away very quickly. They were claiming to colonize the moon. Speaking of "patting on the back," you made a virtual career of stating the obvious. Geez, some of us can see that something is a scam when they claim to be going to colonize the moon or have billions of dollars in bonds. With all due respect, you get booted off most boards, not because of the substance (or the lack thereof) of your posts but because of your style. I have no problem with those who claim something is a scam. Most objective readers object to your posts because you claim that a stock is a scam because of its posters and that the posters are touts because of the stock. Circuitous, lazy and quite amateur arguments in my opinion. So kind of gossip upon gossip and then you pizz, whine and moans when your arguments are refuted. After that you hide on a board that almost nobody sees and call names and defame posters for posting opinions. Anniebonny, have you noticed that even on the Anthony board, almost nobody responds to your posts? Substance, rather than cut and paste or name-calling is what most mature investors want to read here. Come over here and prove me wrong. Bring specific posts or would you rather "lie" in hiding?

To: anniebonny who wrote (3268)	2/6/2009 1:53:09 PM
From: rrufff	2 Recommendations Respond to of 5034

For the record, anyone with even minimal reading comprehension would understand that my post on the DD MAVEN board was congratulating shortsinthesand on his posted trade on SOFN, and that I was clearly negative on the stock. He's hardly a bullish poster, but he was posting about an apparently successful trade. Message 25308325 For some reason Perry Yelton and Anniebonny picked up this post as my being somehow bullish on this stock. If they really were able to do any DD, they would read all my posts and know that I think SOFN is a scam and that I have posted similarly about BIHC right in the same post that they apparently cited without reading. I posted about a couple of stocks that appeared to be scamming with promises of cash dividends. Some of these self-styled "cyber sleupps" sure are stoooopid, and should retire to nantuget. Oh and they should also read my board on naked shorting where I many times indicate that scam pennies grab the issue to hide their own diluting ways. Yet, this cindyyahoo idiot posted that I believe all scams are naked shorted. As they say, "maroons, loosers." They should only look in the mirror, as the frustration is apparent. ROFLMAO