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 : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: leigh aulper who wrote (5746)	7/6/1998 9:15:00 PM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

leigh: No, I wasn't in the Marines, and I doubt that you or Annie were either. I don't hold others to standards that I don't uphold myself, thus my defense of Gary's disinclination to turn over personal information to someone such as you, even if, in a moment of unnecessary generosity, he might have said that he would. If Marines weren't taught to alter tactics to fit battlefield conditions, we'd all be speaking German and Japanese today. On what basis does he owe you any personal information? Since when does a defender of a company whose management has never done anything other than lie have any legitimate complaint against an honest critic? Gary was right, you were wrong; if you had listened to him, you wouldn't have lost all your money. And you think that somehow makes you righteous? Ha.

To: leigh aulper who wrote (5746)	7/6/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6735

Okay Leigh, I wasn't a marine and I didn't promise you anything, so I'll ask.....what was wrong with the substance of Gary's opinion on what shorts would have to do? Unless you are willing to answer, then personally, I think the criticism lodged at you is well founded. If, as you seem to claim in defense of SOLV, unsubstantiated criticism is unwarranted and wrong, then you should be willing to answer this simple inquiry. Seems pretty clear to me...if you are short and a call is made for the stock you borrowed to sell, you have to either deliver the stock or its equivalent..here, it's apparent equivalent is one new share and one debenture, which could be purchased in the market....this purchase and delivery would seem to be the closing basis for the original short sale..... It seems to me that the amount of the naked shorts (i.e., legal MM shorts) out there will be quantified by the total amount of tendered stock that exceeds the amount of issued stock. I would think that they would have to cover by buying a new share and a debenture in the open market for delivery or by maintaining their naked short position in the new stock and debenture. Last time I checked, NASD required reports from members on the open short interest. (Not sure that they do this on BB stocks though) It shouldn't take too many computers to figure out who is short and by how much -- and this should come pretty close (if not exactly) to the amount by which tendered shares exceed issued shares.....unless some folks have already turned their shares into wall paper and don't tender their shares... Anxiously awaiting a substantive reply.... Troy P.S. - Dave: ROFLMAO re the ringside.....