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: Graystone who wrote (7978)	4/8/1998 10:26:00 AM
From: Moot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Graystone Whether posters on this thread give a rodent's sphincter whether title and rights are different in my mind is irrelevant. In fact, whatever distinction I hold is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that title and rights are distinct in law, and that is of utmost relevance. A title-holder's rights can be extinguished or limited for a number of reasons--and that isn't something that is unique to Venezuela. I don't presume to speak for everyone, as you apparently do, but it is clear to me that several posters here recognize a difference between title and rights and understand that this is the crux of the matter. You and anyone else who so chooses can persist in believing otherwise but that will not make it so. Your statement that even I admit that Mael/Crystallex holds title to LC 4 & 6 as ordered by the CSJ is a curious one. I am simply acknowledging a fact--one that would remain a fact quite irrespective of any claim or 'admission' I might make about it. As to whether Asensio is 'fraudulent', again I have to withhold judgement. Does an unchallenged conviction or an article in the New York Times make it so? If so, does that hold for all cases? Would that be your judgement of 'Mesa1' who posts on Stockhouse? As I recall, 'Mesa1' has been heavily fined for unauthorized trading in a client's account and a number of other offences and has had his licence revoked. Is he 'fraudulent' simply because there is a public record that indicates this? If your answer is yes, I think a great number of people would disagree with you. If your answer is no, I have to wonder why it is that different standards are applied to shorts and longs. In your previous post you invited comments from me. It seemed at the time that you had given some care to reading my posts and, under the apparently mistaken assumption that you were in fact interested in receiving such comments, I replied out of courtesy. I won't make the same mistake again. Regards.

To: Graystone who wrote (7978)	4/13/1998 4:47:00 AM
From: Graystone	Respond to of 10836

Goldstein ? or Keep left please The thrust of this attack is doubt. Watch for posters who want you to believe other reasons for the current share price. Look at the current short position. Make no mistakes, this is a short attack. If you are a trader or broker, you would be well advised to take a look at the progress of events. Start with two facts firmly in your mind. Asensio said March 3 Crystallex had no direct or indirect interest, he persists in this belief and on March 23 gives us an official opinion that is in direct contradiction of official facts, this clearly are not the tactics of a totally sane man. Some on this thread would have you believe that this is not Asensio's fault, in a pig's eye. Asensio knew this was a big court case, he just used the doubt and some convenient players to create wealth for himself at your expense. He did this by deliberately ignoring facts, semantically speaking he would be innocent until a lawyer pinned his as* to the wall, I think that has been done before. You can go out and confirm this information, I am not asking you to rely on me. I can tell you, their is no doubt the problem is Asensio.