|
|
|
|
||
Re: Lawsuit expenses bankrupted Utah-based SCOXHey Panglozz, maybe a little perspective here will help. The SCO and the OSTK litigation have nothing in common: SCO sued based on the expectation that infractions would be found, while OSTK is suing based on the undeniable fact that someone is breaking the law. At this point, the only thing reasonable people can dispute is how much damage has been done. (Which is not to say I'm necessarily calling Rashomon "reasonable" for the position he's taken on this suit. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.) Do you happen to have an alternate explanation for OSTK being on the Reg SHO list for 450 days, when the law says that with a few very specific exemptions, anything over 13 days is illegal? And a smart guy like you should be able to help me understand how it is that OSTK has such a high short interest when shares are so scarce as to be impossible for legitimate shorts to locate. And given such scarcity, maybe you can clarify what principle of economics states that all things being equal, shrinking supply causes price to drop. I can see both sides of the SCO lawsuit, and frankly tend to come down on the same side you do. Supposing that's how you fell in with the crowd you run with on these boards, and you, unlike them, remain in touch with your conscience, I'm quite certain that as you learn more about the real issues here you'll come to regard them as I do. And so, Panglozz, when that happens, we'll welcome you over here on the light side. It doesn't pay as well, but at least we can sleep at night. |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
4494 | Re: Lawsuit expenses bankrupted Utah-based SCOX | ScipioAfricanus | 1 | 2/3/2007 3:13:31 PM |