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: creede who wrote (3977)	11/17/2008 1:09:15 PM
From: rrufff	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5034

See my prior post, but it seems that to some of the "crusaders" on SI, RB and elsewhere, the difference between scamming and being a "cyber-sleupp" hero is measured by the size of the wallet which gets the benefit and the orientation of the trade, i.e., shorts are always right, bashers are never wrong, there is no such thing as Naked shorting, manipulative shorting, MM abuse and paid/professional, (hedge fund or money pool) associated bashers.

To: creede who wrote (3977)	11/24/2008 6:59:19 AM
From: rrufff	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5034

Take a look at this post. Apparently it's ok for shareholders to trade on inside information so long as he claims it's not "confidential," at least according to the poster. Message 25202187 Most would probably agree that this re-writing of the rules looks more like the typical hypocritical whine that it's ok to short, or even trade, in a manipulative fashion if it serves some "greater good" that the poster supports. The argument, albeit a hypocritical one, is that Cuban was screwing a scam company. This is similar to arguments made by the same poster and associates that it was sort of ok to use purloined FBI data and to extort freebie shares from CEO's of scam companies because vigilantism was appropriate when dealing with scam companies and management. Of course, we've seen associated posters claim that just speaking to a CEO was some sort of violation of insider trading, but, then again, it does seem to be a case of "his scam is ok, nobody else's is...."