They are repeats so apologies to those who read bo
Post# of 72447
Posted On: 06/22/2016 11:23:32 AM
They are repeats so apologies to those who read both boards for the redundancy.
Re: tombrady12nh Post# 152504
Why bother to rob banks.
Just write an intentionally twisted and perverted version of "facts" about a biotech companies drugs. Quietly notify the "right" people about what the article will say and which company will be the target. They will establish a small short position just prior to publication and open the floodgates on publication day.
Hell, sneak around and take some pictures of the office at night or on the weekend so you can say it's an " empty office" and has "unviable science." Drop some hints to an attorney to be on the lookout for the article so they can act quickly with the complaint to magnify the effect of the bogus "article".
All one really needs is a website dedicated to protecting the anonymity of its authors. The damaged company can't come after you because they don't know who you are.
The recipe worked here to the tune of roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars.
Beats the hell out of robbing a bank where the cops might come looking for you.
It really is a pretty simple recipe.
Taking Cellceutix out of the equation for a moment, who/whom in this recipe could/should be held responsible for the damage done to shareholders? Obvious answer is the author,but thats not possible because their identity remains hidden. It won't stop until a huge fine or jail time for someone.
Truly this should be made much larger than just Cellceutix v Rosen.
This is a systematic problem and in as much as I feel it might be best to stop diverting attention away from the science and trial progression, if every company that is molested in this fashion does the same , will it ever stop? Somehow one of the pieces of this puzzle needs to be removed.
My personal opinion is that the website should be forced to reveal the identity of the author if people are harmed due to false speech it should not be protected.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The paraphrasing does not generally include (but does usually imply) the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech which is dangerous but also true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire...ed_theater
Should the fact that one claims they were only publishing an " opinion" that there is a "Fire" be grounds to conceal the authors identity especially if that site still refuses to remove the article to this day?
Replies:
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Jhawker on 6/21/2016 11:24:33 PM
"Re: loanranger Post# 152514
Well, I did start with a bank robbery simile so...
"Why stick this in the middle of an otherwise reasonable post?
"The recipe worked here to the tune of roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars."
No one benefited to the tune of roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars, did they? If so, please say how. "
Truthfully, I used it because it is a dramatic number and I got to use all caps. smile. How's that for honesty? (Rt)
How should we measure a crime then? By the amount received by the original perpetrators or by the damage done to the victim?
Seems, it's probably a better number than me guessing at how much the original perpetrators managed to keep for themselves. It emphasizes the true degree of damage done rather than the amount absconded by a single person or small group.
If I set out to rob a bank with a few co-conspirators and we send out a text to a flash mob that there is free money to be had and it won't even be illegal if they come and take some, should I be responsible for that part of the crime as well? What about the depositors who had more than 250k (FDIC insured amount) in their account and decided they need to move some to another bank? That harmed the original bank as well even though the figure would not be attributed to the thief.
This is a small pink sheet company so it's probably more like robbing a homeless person. Law enforcement isn't going to give it much attention and a good number of the victims won't even report the crime because they have something to hide themselves.
Perhaps some even blame the victims for being in those circumstances. All one need do is avoid the type of stocks they are currently targeting. Right?
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Re: tombrady12nh Post# 152504
Why bother to rob banks.
Just write an intentionally twisted and perverted version of "facts" about a biotech companies drugs. Quietly notify the "right" people about what the article will say and which company will be the target. They will establish a small short position just prior to publication and open the floodgates on publication day.
Hell, sneak around and take some pictures of the office at night or on the weekend so you can say it's an " empty office" and has "unviable science." Drop some hints to an attorney to be on the lookout for the article so they can act quickly with the complaint to magnify the effect of the bogus "article".
All one really needs is a website dedicated to protecting the anonymity of its authors. The damaged company can't come after you because they don't know who you are.
The recipe worked here to the tune of roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars.
Beats the hell out of robbing a bank where the cops might come looking for you.
It really is a pretty simple recipe.
Taking Cellceutix out of the equation for a moment, who/whom in this recipe could/should be held responsible for the damage done to shareholders? Obvious answer is the author,but thats not possible because their identity remains hidden. It won't stop until a huge fine or jail time for someone.
Truly this should be made much larger than just Cellceutix v Rosen.
This is a systematic problem and in as much as I feel it might be best to stop diverting attention away from the science and trial progression, if every company that is molested in this fashion does the same , will it ever stop? Somehow one of the pieces of this puzzle needs to be removed.
My personal opinion is that the website should be forced to reveal the identity of the author if people are harmed due to false speech it should not be protected.
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The paraphrasing does not generally include (but does usually imply) the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech which is dangerous but also true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire...ed_theater
Should the fact that one claims they were only publishing an " opinion" that there is a "Fire" be grounds to conceal the authors identity especially if that site still refuses to remove the article to this day?
Replies:
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Jhawker on 6/21/2016 11:24:33 PM
"Re: loanranger Post# 152514
Well, I did start with a bank robbery simile so...
"Why stick this in the middle of an otherwise reasonable post?
"The recipe worked here to the tune of roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars."
No one benefited to the tune of roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars, did they? If so, please say how. "
Truthfully, I used it because it is a dramatic number and I got to use all caps. smile. How's that for honesty? (Rt)
How should we measure a crime then? By the amount received by the original perpetrators or by the damage done to the victim?
Seems, it's probably a better number than me guessing at how much the original perpetrators managed to keep for themselves. It emphasizes the true degree of damage done rather than the amount absconded by a single person or small group.
If I set out to rob a bank with a few co-conspirators and we send out a text to a flash mob that there is free money to be had and it won't even be illegal if they come and take some, should I be responsible for that part of the crime as well? What about the depositors who had more than 250k (FDIC insured amount) in their account and decided they need to move some to another bank? That harmed the original bank as well even though the figure would not be attributed to the thief.
This is a small pink sheet company so it's probably more like robbing a homeless person. Law enforcement isn't going to give it much attention and a good number of the victims won't even report the crime because they have something to hide themselves.
Perhaps some even blame the victims for being in those circumstances. All one need do is avoid the type of stocks they are currently targeting. Right?
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
(2)
(0)