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: mqmsi who wrote (5975)	9/2/1998 12:34:00 AM
From: David Coakley	Respond to of 6735

As it has been for years now, trading in Solv-Ex shares is beyond peculiar. Everyone knows what is going on here, including the NASD and SEC, but, the problem is so serious that they are afraid to do anything that might expose the problems to the public. Imagine what would happen to investor "confidence" if ABC's Nightline did a segment on SHORTSELLING and included what has been happening to small cap stocks under assault by short selling cartels? We'll get our justice. David

To: mqmsi who wrote (5975)	9/2/1998 2:25:00 AM
From: bigtoe	Respond to of 6735

Mark, >>... It is going to be interesting to see if Larry, Darryl, and Darryl, oops, I mean Larry, Gary, and Barb ...<<< ...who's Darryl? regards, bigtoe

To: mqmsi who wrote (5975)	9/2/1998 5:14:00 AM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6735

Mark: That is interesting. Barb is now "Daryl". This time last year the suckers (excuse me, the bulls) were claiming that Barb was really named Michele and worked at Fahnestock. No chance Barb may actually be Barb, is there? Nah, I guess women can't post under their own names. So 60,000 shares voted against management, and 60,000 shares traded in the market today, so it is obvious to you that it was the exact same 60,000 shares to. Every share, no doubt, had a secret name tag on it, which only you know about, and you were able to match them up. And there wasn't any of the usual OTC double counting or triple counting. And you know precisely why they were selling: there is good news about the company and they wanted to make it go down, not because the market is weak and/or they wanted a tax loss. Not only that, but you can tell that the sellers, who evidently had enough standing to vote, also didn't even have any certificates. Once again, those of us who knew enough to recognize an overpriced promotion when it was still a double digit stock, stand in awe of your brilliant analysis and irrefutable logic. Ummm... in case you are too dense to recognize sarcasm, your post makes it eminently clear that you don't know your mouth, shall we say, from a tar filled hole in the ground. If you know as little about oil and TiO2 as you do about the market, then poor David and the other wishful thinkers here are just getting themselves set up for another disappointment. The ethical thing for you to do, assuming that is the case, is to break the news to them now.