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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (7379)	3/24/1998 9:24:00 AM
From: Pawn	Respond to of 10836

Barbara, I am curious to know WHY you assume the stock would have fallen without you shorting?? Under my scrutiny it appeared that the stock was on an upward flight until the Asensio "news" appeared??? Having just bought into the stock VERY recently, and having done my due diligence and READ both sides of the mud-slinging equation, I still consider this an excellent buy. WHY?? because my strong belief is that KRY HAS a CASE that will be proven in KRY's favour. I HAVE NOT bought into Asensio's one-sided approach to this battle, nor his ability to excite the press with his "news"..as we ALL now, it is much easier to sell on fear than it is to calmly invest on principle and reason.Previous to my investment I contacted KRY for their reaction to the "headline grabbing" abilities of the shorts, and they have given me concrete, solid and truthful answers as to where the company is headed and its focus.It was not glorified, it was not apologetic, it was just straight facts, I thentook the liberty of visiting Asencios site. I appreciate the amount of effort and time the entire shorts put into driving a stock down(as evidenced by A' website which i perused through to witness the "headline" bashing attacks that were previously used! impressive? yes. The "american way" as he referred to? I think not!). I for one will support a company that has been CLEAR to me on the FACTS when asked point blank, and has spent more time and energy PLANNING for their prosperous future, rather than attempting to send one-sided view points to instill fear in the many that have not been following this battle. And in answer to your question "do you still think he was just trying to cover a bad short position?" I ask you "do you think he is trying to do this for the 'good' of the American people?" yeah, right! Good for you for making some $$ out of the deal...but good for the other side for beleiving in their instincts and not letting the media influence and interfere with the proper outcome. happy to be holding my shares, looks like a good time to buy!

To: Mama Bear who wrote (7379)	3/24/1998 11:13:00 AM
From: Gerald Oglesby	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Come on ole49er we know its you.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (7379)	3/24/1998 11:43:00 AM
From: Michael Bidder	Respond to of 10836

Whats your time frame for a $2 cnd stock price? Do you think the fantasy department will dream up another good story or go onto fresher soil? Regards -Michael

To: Mama Bear who wrote (7379)	3/24/1998 12:58:00 PM
From: Moot	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

Barbara Payne: Good/Evil, Misc., Ms. Payne: Longs are good. Shorts are evil. Or so, it seems, many believe. This raises the possibility of a very interesting phenomenon. I have no doubt that if all the longs were presented with incontrovertible advance notice that it was about to be announced that Crystallex had lost LC 4 & 6, many would short this stock. (Assuming, of course, that they understood the mechanics, had sufficient security, and stock was available.) We would thereby be witness to the near-instantaneous transformation of the inherently good into the inherently evil. I don't like the practice of shorting and have never engaged in it. Nonetheless, it is an aspect of the market. I don't believe that those who benefit from it are evil by virtue of that fact alone. Those who knowingly circulate or abet falsehoods are, in my opinion, scum. And I don't make a distinction based on which side of the good/evil dichotomy they happen to fall. Many people have already been financially hurt in this play. When it comes to culpability, the 'We win or we win', 'bullet-proof', 'rubber-stamp', 'to the moon' crowd bear more responsibility than the nay-sayers, in my opinion. With respect to Eric Charters, he is sometimes very entertaining. Often, he is just a spectacle. Too often, he is an opinionated boor who doesn't so much debate issues as attempt to bludgeon into submission or at least quiescence with exaggeration, sarcasm, and general bombast those who refuse to accept his reading of a situation. In my opinion, you are most informative and effective when you ignore the taunts of such posters. I can certainly understand the temptation to engage in these sparring matches--a temptation that may be irresistible to evil ones such as yourself--but they really don't serve much purpose beyond a momentary satisfaction. (This may, in part, provide an answer to an earlier question to me posed by Marcos.) Over the past little while, I have tried to express my own unease over this play in a series of posts. In trying to lend some coherence to those concerns, I have had occasion to reconsider my own commitment and risk tolerance. As a result, I hold no shares as of last Friday. Perhaps I'm just weak. That's probably to be expected from a near-heretic who is willing to give some attention to the thoughts of shorters. I would like to thank everyone on this thread who gave my concerns a fair hearing. I especially thank those who responded with criticisms, arguments, and further information. I have learned a great deal. I still hope Crystallex comes out on top. I simply can't muster much concern for shorters who may be caught in this play. I have a feeling that Barbara J. Payne will not be one of them. Regards